Second Circuit Upholds Rules That Prevent Online Graduates From Taking N.Y. Bar Exam

In a summary order in a case called Bazadier v. McAlary, (available here) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the state of New York has the right to keep graduates of online law schools from taking the state's bar examination.  The court endorsed the conclusion of the district court that the admissions rules at issue do not violate applicants' rights to equal protection or freedom of association.  For more information check out the ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Responsbility (28 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 117).

How not to practice law: lie to the disciplinary board in an attempt to cover your misconduct - third time this week!

Just a few days ago I posted two notes about cases in which the attorneys lied to the disciplinary board in an attempt to cover their misconduct.  As reported in the Legal Profession blog, here is a third, and it may be the "best" one yet.  In this case, called In the matter of Joan Palmer Davis, the Georgia Supreme Court disbarred the attorney primarily for neglecting a case. Among other things, the attorney failed to appear before the court for a hearing and the case was dismissed.  When questioned about the incident, the attorney claimed she did go to the hearing.  Really?  I am sorry, but how smart do you think it is to lie about whether you were present at a hearing or a meeting of some sort, where there probably is an actual written record and witnesses who could be called to corroborate the allegation - in some cases this could include the judge!  Didn't think that one though, did you!?  In fact, at the disciplinary hearing, four people testified that the lawyer never appeared at the hearing.

You can read the opinion here.

ABA Commission's proposed amendments to the Model Rules

Prof. Andrew Perlman, reporter for the ABA Commission that is preparing the next round of proposed amendments to the Model Rules, has posted a very informative note with links to lots of information on the most recent proposals here.  Some of the proposed changes are minor, others are important.  They include, among others, changes to the rules on competence, confidentiality, communication, and many issues involving new technologies.

How not to practice law: lie to the disciplinary board in an attempt to cover your misconduct -- UPDATED

We have seen this one before, but it never ceases to amaze me.  The Legal Profession blog is reporting that the Maryland Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney, whose most serious violation was that she submitted false documents in defense of the disciplinary charges.  The case is called Attorney Grievance Commission v. Payer and it is available here.

UPDATE 2-24-12:  The Legal Profession blog is reporting yet another case of an attorney making things worse by lying during disciplinary proceedings.   In this case, the attorney engaged in misconduct in connection with a real estate transaction and compounded the problem by testifying falsely in the ensuing bar proceedings.  What ts different about this case is that the attorney was only suspended for eighteen months rather than disbarred.  The case is called Matter of Gurevich and it is available here.

Yet another opinion from Washington DC on the concept of "moral turpitude"

In a new case, reported today in the Legal Profession blog, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has concluded that a conviction for federal witness tampering involves moral turpitude per se and thus requires disbarment.  The case is called In re Walter Blair and it is available here.

As you may remember, this is not the first time I have mentioned the DC courts' view on what constitutes moral turpitude.  Last September I discussed a case from Washington DC interpreting the notion of moral turpitude in an attempt to decide the proper punishment for misconduct.  See here.  In that case, the Disciplinary Board, Bar Counsel and the courts disagreed on the proper sanction for an attorney who had engaged in conduct that involved moral turpitude. 

ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 Releases Nearly Final Drafts of Proposals

Prof. Andrew Perlman, one of the members of the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, has posted an announcement in the Legal Ethics Forum stating that the Commission has released nearly final drafts of the proposals that the ABA House of Delegates is expected to consider at its August 2012 meeting.  The drafts cover issues relating to technology and confidentiality, technology and client development, outsourcing, the establishment of an office in another jurisdiction while admission in that jurisdiction is pending, admission by motion, and the disclosure of confidential information to detect conflicts of interest.  A cover memo describing the newest drafts and how they differ from prior drafts is here. The deadline for comments on these new draft proposals is April 2, 2012.  The Commission plans to finalize these proposals shortly thereafter, so if you would like to comment, please do so before the deadline by sending an email to the Commission's Senior Research Paralegal, Natalia Vera, at natalia.vera@americanbar.org.

Dos and Don’ts for Departing a Law Firm

What are some of the legal and ethical issues that arise when a lawyer leaves a firm?  The Legal Intelligencer Blog has a series on "Dos and Don’ts for Departing a Law Firm" here, here and here.

Supreme Court Justices say no to ethics rules for Supreme Court Justices

Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS blog is reporting today that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has told five members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justices do not plan to adopt as a binding ethical code for themselves — a position that is not new.  Go here for the full report.

Justice Dept asks Court to remove the name of district attorney who engaged in misconduct from opinion, Court refuses

I have often complained that courts do not do enough to encourage proper conduct by district attorneys.  Today I am happy to report an incident that shows the opposite.

The story involves an assistant US district attorney who engaged in certain misconduct. When the Ninth Circuit's opinion named the prosecutor by name, the government filed a motion asking that the name be removed but the court refused not only deciding to retain the references to the district attorney by name but also adding criticism of his superiors. The opinion reads, in part:

We are also troubled by the government’s continuing failure to acknowledge and take responsibility for Albert’s error.  The Department of Justice has an obligation to its lawyers and to the public to prevent prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors, as servants of the law, are subject to constraints and responsibilities that do not apply to other lawyers; they must serve truth and justice first. . . . Their job is not just to win, but to win fairly, staying within the rules. . . . That did not happen here, and the district court swiftly and correctly declared a mistrial . . .
When a prosecutor steps over the boundaries of proper conduct and into unethical territory, the government has a duty to own up to it and to give assurances that it will not happen again. Yet, we cannot find a single hint of appreciation of the seriousness of the misconduct within the pages of the government’s brief on appeal. Instead, the government attempts to shift blame by stating that “the prosecutor gave the defense counsel an opportunity to stop the offending question before the prosecutor asked it,” . . . 

The full text of the opinion is here (thanks to Jonathan Turley for the link). For more on the story go here and here.

Obama proposes budget increase for Legal Services but it is still less than what the agency says it needs

A couple of weeks ago I reported that last November the federal government enacted a bill that slashed federal funding for civil legal assistance to the poor by about 14% — from $404.2 million to $348 million, which is the lowest level since 2007.

Today, the blog of the Legal Times is reporting that President Obama has urged Congress to give the Legal Services Corp. $402 million for fiscal 2013, which is a 15.5% increase from the current $348 million budget.

If approved, that would be the good news.  The bad news is that the new budget would still be $68 million under  the budget proposed by the LSC, the independent agency that provides civil legal aid to the poor.