What do you have to do to get disbarred in New Jersey?!

The Legal Profession blog has a short report on a recent case in which the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided not to disbar an attorney even though the attorney had already faced eight ethics complaints in the past, half of which had resulted in suspensions. To make it worse, it appears that the attorney did not even care to respond to the charges in four of those cases. To its credit, the Disciplinary Review Board had recommeded disbarment. I understand the value in providing second chances but after 4 suspensions and a recommendation by the Board to disbar... C'mon!

Follow up on Supreme Court oral argument in Turner v Rogers

In Turner v Rogers, the Supreme Court is considering whether there is a constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in civil contempt proceedings that can result in incarceration. The ScotUS blog has all the relevant documents and briefs. The transcript of the oral argument is available here.

Amanda Rice of the ScotUS blog reports that after the oral argument, Jesse Holland of the Associated Press reported that “the Court sounded reluctant to extend the right to a taxpayer-provided lawyer . . . to civil proceedings where a person faces jail time.” Similarly, Adam Liptak of the New York Times described the Justices as “appear[ing] frustrated” during the argument, as “[i]t seemed that there were procedural and practical problems with almost every potential ruling.”

Prof. Renee Newman Knake, of the Legal Ethics Forum, adds that Adam Liptak summarizes the argument in Justices Grapple With Issue of Right to Lawyers in Child Support Cases. The ABA filed an amicus brief saying yes, "that poor people should have the right to a lawyer in civil contempt proceedings carrying a threat of jail time." Professors Ben Barton and Darryl Brown filed an amicus brief arguing no, that pro se reforms are the better alternative for ensuring justice in these types of cases.

For more comments on the case, go here and here.

Supreme Court to hear argument in case on right to attorney in civil contempt proceeding

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Turner v. Rogers (formerly titled Turner v. Price) which asks whether an indigent client has a right to an attorney for civil contempt proceeding that could lead to jail time. Stay tuned for updates on the transcript and more.

Supreme Court reverses finding that prosecutor selected jury improperly

In a very short Per curiam opinion (available here), the United States Supreme Court has issued reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's finding that a trial prosecutor had struck two members of the jury venire for race-based reasons. The defendant's motion for relief based on the prosecutor's conduct had been denied by the trial court and affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. After that court affirmed, the defendant sought habeas relief in federal court, but the District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then reversed finding that "[t]he prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African-American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African-American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors."

The US Supreme Court, however, found this conclusion to be "as inexplicable as it is unexplained" and reversed. The case is Felkner v. Jackson and it is available here.

Thanks to the Legal Profession blog for the update.

Supreme Court grants cert in yet another prosecutorial misconduct case

The Supreme Court just announced it has granted review in a case called Rehberg v. Paulk which asks "whether a government official who acts as a “complaining witness” by presenting perjured testimony against an innocent citizen is entitled to absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for civil damages." The lower court's opinion is available here. As usual, the Supreme Court blog has all the information and links here, including the Petition for certiorari, and all the briefs and replies. Make sure you keep that link handy, since they keep updating it with documents as they are filed.

I have not had a chance to read the opinion or the petition for cert so I do not know the details but I have been speculating for a while that after all the prosecutorial misconduct scandals in 2009 (go here and scroll down for all my posts on prosecutorial misconduct), the Court has been looking for opportunities to express itself on the subject. It first granted review in the Pottawatomie case which eventually settled, and then Connick v Thompson, for which it heard oral arguments in the fall.

Rehberg is, therefore, the third case related to the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in two terms. For previous posts on Pottawatomie go here, here and here. For previous posts on Connick v Thompson, including links to the oral arguments, go here, here, here, here and here.

Does using the plural "offices" when you only have one location violate the rules?

We have seen a number of cases where courts have found the use of "associates" in a firm's name deceptive if there is only one associate or if the attorney does not have any associates at all. A couple of days ago, I noticed a couple of attorneys refer to their firms as "The Law Offices of ....(so and so)..." I wonder if the word "offices" suggests there are multiple locations. Assuming there is only one, does the title of the firm violate the rules?

Ct finds communication among attorneys regarding possible malpractice claim by client is privileged

According to a story on the Ethical Quandary blog, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has rendered an important decision in the area of law firm risk management and attorney-client privilege. The court held that when lawyers within a firm communicate internally regarding the firm’s potential malpractice in an existing client’s matter, those communications are protected from later discovery by the client under the attorney-client privilege unless the client can establish good cause for discovery. The case is called Tattletale Alarm Systems, Inc. v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP. For more on the story and a full summary of the case, go here.

DC Ct of Appeals reverses conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct but splits on whether prosecutors should be investigated

The blof of the Legal Times is reporting (here) that, in a 2 to 1 opinion, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, has reversed a conviction after finding that federal prosecutors failed to timely turn over exculpatory information to the lawyers representing a man in a shooting case. However, the judges who voted for the majority split over whether the trial judge, Craig Iscoe, should inquire whether prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia committed an ethics violation by failing to provide the defendant's lawyers with information beneficial to his case. The case is called Tyree Beysean Miller v. US and the 75-page opinion is available here.

I haven't had time to read the long opinion myself, so I am relying on the news item, but it is hard to understand how you can find that there is prosecutorial misconduct and then not say that it should be investigated whether the misconduct is a violation of the professional rules. If this is an accurate description of what happened here, it is another example of a missed opportunity for a court to take prosecutorial misconduct seriously. For comments on this issue go here and here. For all the recent stories of prosecutorial misconduct - and, unfortunately, there are many, go here.

Podcast on social media

Here is a link to a radio show on the Legal Talk Network on how to (and how not to) use social media as a marketing tool.

North Carolina considers whether to allow non-lawyers to buy interests in law firms

According to a comment by popular New York blogger (and personal injury attorney) Eric Turkewitz, there is a bill pending in North Carolina that would allow non-lawyers to buy up to 49% interests in law firms which he argues "violates the age old prohibition on sharing legal fees with non-lawyers, and is one hell of a lousy idea." He makes a pretty convincing argument in his post which you can read in full by going here.