Defense attorney questions wether US government is disregarding client's right to confidentiality in 9/11 prosecution

On of the defense attorneys in the case against alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators in the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks argued an emergency motion in a pre trial hearing arguing that unidentified intelligence agencies have channels to listen in on privileged attorney-client conversations. The chief prosecutors denied the allegation.  Go here for more on the story.

Thanks to the Legal Ethics Forum for the link.

Update on advertising rules

The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers is currently holding a national meeting and today they had a discussion on recent developments regarding advertising rules.  Nicole Hyland was there and she posted this short report on the Legal Ethics Forum.  For other posts on recent developments in Florida and Tennessee go here and here.

Article: "America's broken criminal justice system"

Blogger has published a long but interesting article on what he calls "America's broken criminal justice system." In it, he discusses certain aspects of our legal system that he argues "serve to destroy the notion of a Criminal Justice System that operates fairly towards each citizen and make that system into an instrument of oppression." The items he discusses include (using his words): unfairness of representation, under-funding of the court system, plea bargaining as an insult to justice, the political nature of judges, prosecution as a career stepping stone, the corruption of law enforcement and public ignorance of our criminal justice system. Go here to read the full article.

More comments on allegations against former prosecutor in Texas for concealing evidence

Back in March of last year I posted a comment on a case in Texas in which a judge was under investigation for misconduct when he was a prosecutor.  My original post, which includes a segment from the tv show 60 minutes on the case, is available here.  A few months later, Professor Jonathan Turley published his own comment on the case here. Today, he published an update and more comments here.

Florida Supreme Court amends, and some say "loosens," lawyers’ advertising rules

A divided Florida Supreme Court yesterday eliminated a number of existing limits in the state's regulations on advertising by lawyers but also extended the rules to websites.

A majority of the seven justices agreed to permit previously prohibited ads that characterize the quality of legal services being offered, information about past results and testimonials, but held that all advertising must be “objectively verifiable,” whether distributed over the Internet or through traditional media such as print, outdoor and broadcast.  Thus, lawyers will be allowed to refer to verifiable facts about their past cases, but not to simply assert that they are one of "the best trial lawyer in Florida.”  The court held this would be misleading and prohibited.  Two justices filed dissenting opinions.  You can read the opinions here and a short summary here.

New report on contingency fees

The Center for Justice & Democracy has published a new study called Courthouse Cornerstone: Contingency Fees and Their Importance for Everyday Americans in which it discusses the debate over the use of contingency fees and the efforts by tort reformers to limit or eliminate the use of contingency fees in the US.  You can download a copy of the report here.  For a summary Fact Sheet click here.  For the Press Release announcing the report click here.

How not to conduct a hearing: leave a woman requesting a protective order with the guy she wants protection from in a room with no security personnel

By now you may have heard of this story or seen the video; but in case you haven't here it is.  The video shows how a judge left a woman with her ex-boyfriend in a room despite her saying that she was fearful of him and seeking protection.  Once alone, the man attacks the woman.  (The other woman in the room was the attacker's grandmother).

How not to practice law: represent yourself in a disciplinary hearing when you have faced discipline four times in the past

I found this headline at the Legal Profession blog very interesting:  "Self-Representation In Bar Discipline Case Is Evidence Of Incompetence."  Go here for the full story.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ended up disbarring the attorney stating that the fact the lawyer has had so many disciplinary problems "indicate[s] a failure to grasp or adhere to the standards that are required of attorneys practicing in this state and a lack of remorse for his prior ethical violations" and that his self-representation knowing his license was at stake was essentially incompetent.

What are the consequences of the amendment to the comment to Model Rule 1.1?

Last August, the ABA amended the comment to Model Rule 1.1 to extend the notion of competence to include knowledge about "technology."  Specifically, the new comment states, in part, that "[t]o maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology..." 

The comment does not define or explain the concept of "technology" leaving much to interpretation.  However, the history of the debates within, and the proposals of, the Commission 20/20 which suggested the amendments does provide some guidance. At the very least, the initial concern related to the possibility that attorneys were risking disclosing confidential information by mistake because of their lack of understanding of how computer programs work (particularly how they create and store data and metadata).  (For previous posts on that subject go here and here or search in the internet/social media section of the blog here.)

But "technology" is a much broader concept which means there can be serious implications to the application of the new comment.  For this reason it will be interesting to see how this new duty to be knowledgeable about computer programs and other technology is interpreted and applied.

One question that is now being debated is whether it would be incompetence not to use certain computer programs or social media.  This was the topic in a panel at a recent ABA Professional Responsibility conference and it is now the topic of an article published today in the Student Lawyer.

The article starts by stating:  "Most law students have been thoroughly warned about the dangers of social media, misuse of the Internet, importance of protecting online reputations, and so on. The message is don’t make anything available on the web that you would not want a potential employer to access.  But as a practicing lawyer, you may have an ethical responsibility to use the Internet and social media as tools to actually help you in your practice"  Go here to read the rest of the article.

New York issues opinion on duties to prospective clients

The Ethics Committee of the New York City Bar Association has just issued a very informative new ethics opinion on the duties owed to prospective clients under Rule 1.18. You can read the full opinion here. It is a very good summary of the issues that arise in cases involving prospective clients, especially those that relate to confidentiality and conflicts of interest. Here is a summary of the opinion:

Rule 1.18 codifies the established principle that New York lawyers owe duties to prospective clients even when no lawyer-client relationship ensues. These duties are determined by the nature of the information received from the prospective client and may restrict the lawyer‟s ability to use or reveal the information or to represent adverse parties in the same or a substantially related matter. While these duties may be significant, they are less restrictive than the comparable duties owed to former and current clients and permit the use of ethical screens to take on adverse representations.

Thanks to Nicole Hyland of the Legal Ethics Form for the link.