A panel of judges on the New York Appellate Division — New York’s midlevel appeals court — ruled Thursday that Ken Chesebro is barred from practicing law in the state, “effective immediately,” following his guilty plea in Georgia’s 2020 election interference case against former President Trump and his allies.
For more on the story go to The Hill. Law & Crime, Courthouse News Service and MSNBC.
Earlier this month, the Indiana Supreme Court approved funding for a regulatory sandbox program to develop alternative legal services models. The Court’s order is based on a recommendation from the Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future which the Indiana Supreme Court had created in April 2024.
The Commission recommended that Indiana’s regulatory sandbox be structured like Utah’s Office of Legal Services Innovation (Innovation Office). Utah’s Innovation Office was established by the Utah Supreme Court in 2020 to ensure consumers have access to modern and affordable legal services in a competitive marketplace.
What is the worst type of (or highest level of) discipline? If you thought "disbarment" you would be wrong. The correct answer is permanent disbarment, because in most jurisdictions disbarred lawyers can be reinstated after a period of time.
And last week, New Jersey decided to join that majority of jurisdictions. As reported in the ABA Journal, according to a recent order of the state's supreme court "New Jersey lawyers who are disbarred will in most cases be allowed to apply for reinstatement after five years." New Jersey now joins 41 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing disbarred attorneys to seek readmission.
Having said that, the NJ supreme court retained the authority to impose permanent disbarment in future egregious cases and to block successive applications for reinstatement for particular attorneys on a case by case basis.
The Illinois Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism has released a study on bullying within the profession. Not surprisingly (since the study is about bullying), the study concludes that bullying disproportionately affects female attorneys, attorneys with disabilities, attorneys of color, younger attorneys, and LGBTQ+ attorneys.
Illinois Lawyer Now has a short summary of the study here, and you can read the full study here.
Do you remember last year's stories about "DoNotPay," a company that claimed to have the "world's first robot lawyer"? In case you don't, this was a company that claimed to offer legal services using a "robot lawyer" (aka "AI technology). It made a lot of claims about the services it could provide, only it was revealed to be all smoke and mirrors. I reported on the story throughout 2023 on January 29, February 14, February 16, March 4, March 10, and March 17.
Long time readers of this blog are familiar with the trend in some jurisdictions to allow certain legal professionals who are not admitted lawyers to provide limited legal services. A recent podcast of the ABA "legal rebels" page addressed the subject. Its introduction reads as follows:
Much has been made of the gigantic access-to-justice gap in this country. According to a 2022 study by the Legal Services Corp., 92% of Americans do not receive any or enough help for a civil legal need. There are many reasons for this.
Lawyers can be expensive. People might not realize that they need lawyers. And let’s face it, lawyers are not the most likable or trustworthy people out there. We may not be used car salesmen or members of Congress, but we’re definitely in the neighborhood.
One possible way to help bridge the gap is to expand the pool of people eligible to practice law. Some states have experimented with licensing paralegals or paraprofessionals to handle limited legal matters. In recent years, states including Arizona, Utah, Minnesota and Oregon have started programs allowing paraprofessionals to practice limited areas of law under supervision or after many hours of training.
Of course, that raises age-old concerns about unauthorized practice of law. Those concerns have already helped derail one paraprofessional licensing program in Washington. Could they help take down some more?
In this episode the Legal Rebels Podcast, Eda Rosa talks about licensing paraprofessionals to perform legal tasks, as well as the importance of paralegals and paraprofessionals to the legal profession, with the ABA Journal’s Victor Li. She runs Eda Rosa LLC, a paralegal service and legal professional development training company and hosts the Let’s Talk Paralegal podcast.
You can listen to the full podcast here. It is about 40 minutes long.
In a move that was very slow in coming, but that could not possible have surprised anyone, Rudy Giuliani has been officially and permanently disbarred in Washington DC. You can read the one page decision here. For more on the story, here are a few sources:
Above the Law has a good, short, account of how Giuliani ended up here (from his failed presidential run, to his unfulfilled hopes of joining the Trump administration, to becoming Trump's personal attorney, to his downfall, and, more than likely, upcoming bankruptcy) and explains the DC result as follows:
Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani got disbarred. Again. And in the most Rudy Giuliani way possible.
In a one-page order, the DC Court of Appeals noted that it had ordered him on July 25 “to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed” after America’s erstwhile Mayor was relieved of his license to practice law in the state of New York. Giuliani was apparently preoccupied stumbling into and out of bankruptcy and generally flopping around the federal docket like a beached orca as he desperately attempts to fend off the $148 million judgment in favor of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Atlanta poll workers he defamed. And so Rudy just didn’t bother to respond to the show cause order.
Under local precedent, “The imposition of identical discipline when the respondent fails to object should be close to automatic, with minimum review by both the Board and this court.”
And so, not having replied to the order, the court proceeded to disbar him.
Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court approved plans to proceed with the development of an alternative pathway for attorney licensing in the state that does not include the traditional national bar exam. Go here for the full story.
A few weeks ago I discovered the ABA podcast "Ethics in 10" which features 10 minutes (or so) reviews of specific concepts in Professional Responsibility. The most recent program was a review of Model Rule 8.4(g). Long time readers of this blog know that I have posted a lot about MR 8.4(g), and that I have expressed my doubts about its text for many reasons. This podcast simply explains what the rule says, what its goal was when adopted and goes over its background and history. The speaker does not go into the debate over the rule's content or its possible unconstitutionality when applied to speech. For some of that discussion, go to the section on Model Rule 8.4(g) on this blog and read the many stories and comments I have posted over the years.
The Washington State Bar Association and a board created by the Washington Supreme Court have presented a proposal that, if approved by the Washington Supreme Court, would allow nonlawyer-owned entities to deliver legal services.
If the Washington Supreme Court gives its approval, nonlawyer entities could apply to offer legal services temporarily under an exemption to rules banning the unlicensed practice of law, according to a summary (here) on the Washington State Bar Association’s website.
The ABA Journal has more on the story here.
Every now and then, the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility releases a podcast called "Ethics in 10" in which a moderator discusses a specific Model Rule for about 10 minutes. These podcasts provide a short basic review of the content of the rules and a short reminder of common issues that arise in their interpretation.
The most recent instalment is on Model Rule 1.13 on representation of entity clients. The discussion is very basic, but it is is what it is. You can listen to the presentation here.
Yesterday - August 23, 2024 - the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued a new Formal Ethics Opinion (number 513) on an attorney’s duty to inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of the representation. The summary reads as follows
As recently revised, Model Rule 1.16(a) provides that: “A lawyer shall inquire into and assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to determine whether the lawyer may accept or continue the representation.” To reduce the risk of counseling or assisting a crime or fraud, some level of inquiry and assessment is required before undertaking each representation. Further inquiry and assessment is required when the lawyer becomes aware of a change in the facts and circumstances relating to the representation that raises questions about whether the client is using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud. The lawyer’s inquiry and assessment will be informed by the nature and extent of the risk that the current or prospective client seeks to use, or persists in using, the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud. If after having conducted a reasonable, risk-based inquiry, the lawyer determines that the representation is unlikely to involve assisting in a crime or fraud, the lawyer may undertake or continue the representation. If the lawyer has “actual knowledge” that the lawyer’s services will be used to commit or further criminal or fraudulent activity, the lawyer must decline or withdraw from the representation. When the lawyer’s initial inquiry leaves the lawyer with unresolved questions of fact about whether the current or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud, the lawyer must make additional efforts to resolve those questions through further reasonable inquiry before accepting or continuing the representation. The lawyer need not resolve all doubts. Rather, if some doubt remains even after the lawyer has conducted a reasonable inquiry, the lawyer may proceed with the representation as long as the lawyer concludes that doing so is unlikely to involve assisting or furthering a crime or fraud.
You can read the full opinion here.
A recent article breaking Down the ABA’s guidance on using generative AI in legal practice is available here.
Last May I wrote a comment on an ABA Formal Ethics Opinion on flat fees which concluded that flat fees paid in advance should be considered client funds and, therefore, should be held in a trust account until earned. In my comment I explained why I think this is the correct view even though there is some debate about it among some jurisdictions. You can read my comment here.
I am writing about this topic again today because of two interesting recent opinions, one from California and one from the District of Columbia.
In In re Alexei, ___ A.3d ___ (D.C. Ct. of Appeals 2024), 2024 WL 3611154, (available here) the court held that flat fees paid in advance are unearned until the legal services they are supposed to pay for are completed. As such, even though the attorney may have possession of the fees, the attorney does not have ownership and, thus, the fees property of the client until the fees are actually earned. If an attorney removes the unearned fees from their trust account, the attorney may violate Rule 1.15(a). The court also held that the fees are actually earned only upon completion of the entirety of the solicited services unless the fee agreement specifies otherwise.
Importantly, the court rejected the notion that a flat fee paid in advance should be considered earned upon payment because if a client consent could change when a fee is actually earned, it would not be true that a lawyer can’t earn a fee for doing nothing because a client could consent to an arrangement whereby the lawyer earns a fee upfront before actually performing any work for the client. Also, allowing a lawyers and clients to “deem earned” fees that are not earned yet goes against the intent of the rules that mandate safekeeping of property.
Having said that however, the court recognized that attorneys could depart from the default rule by either (1) specifying in the agreement for services when and how portions of the flat fee are earned or (2) obtaining informed consent from the client to treat unearned fees as their attorney property.
Notice how this second option contradicts the policy upon which the court based its decision to reject the notion that a flat fee paid in advance should be considered to be earned upon payment. In fact, the court essentially says that the attorney can negotiate with the client to have the client agree to do something the court has decided could result in a violation of the rules. This makes little sense, and I explore that topic in a forthcoming article called Advanced Magic in Illinois: Amendments to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and the Confusion Over How to Handle Flat Fees Paid in Advance, 56 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. ___ (2024).
The second recent case addresses the question of whether a client’s creditor may seize funds held in trust pursuant to a flat fee agreement and concludes that, logically, the answer is yes if the fee held in trust has not been earned yet. The case is Dickson v. Mann, Super Ct. No. 37-2021-00042299-PR-TR-CTL (July 16, 2024), available here.
The court held, correctly, that “a flat fee paid by a client to a lawyer for future legal services does not belong to the lawyer until the fee is earned through the actual provision of legal services” and since the firm presented no evidence that it had performed any legal services yet the flat fee funds still belonged to the client at the time the creditor filed the notice of seizure. Accordingly, the court ordered the firm to produce the funds for seizure by the creditor.
The Harvard Law Review has published a very short blog essay titled "Enforceable Ethics for the Supreme Court" on the recent discussion about the need for an, you guessed it, enforceable code of ethics for the Justices of the Supreme Court. You can read it here.
A couple of days ago I posted that Washington is considering a proposal to allow alternative business structures for the practice of law. In a related matter, now comes news that the Texas Supreme Court has preliminarily approved the delivery of legal services by licensed paralegals and other non-lawyer approved professionals. This is part of a trend that has been (very slowly) developing among various jurisdictions. Recently, New Hampshire expanded its program. See here.
Go here for more on the story.
Back in April I reported that a disciplinary panel in Washington DC had held that Jeffrey Clark had violated the rules of professional conduct. See here.
Now comes news that the Hearing Committee Report in the Jeffrey Clark District of Columbia bar discipline matter matter has been released and that it proposes a two year suspension. You can read more about the story here, here and here. You can read the 213 page opinion here.
Reportedly, Clark is seeking to review the decision. See here.
As posted in the Washington Bar Association's website:
As proposed, the pilot program on entity regulation would allow entities to provide legal and law-related services in Washington under time-bound, limited exemptions from the otherwise applicable rules and statutes governing entities practicing law. If approved by the Court, among U.S. jurisdictions, Washington would follow only Utah and Arizona in executing a plan to determine how the delivery of legal services by entities can be regulated in a manner that protects consumers and promotes broader access to legal services. Under the proposal, participating entities would be required to abide by a Supreme Court authorizing order detailing conditions on their participation, including adherence to rules of ethics and regular reporting of data and information relating to their delivery of services to the public.
You can provide feedback to the WSBA and Practice of Law Board during the next Board of Governors meeting Sept. 6-7 or via email at entityregulationpilot@wsba.org.
Go here for more information.
June 29, 2024
It is never surprising to hear that a lawyer's license is suspended following a conviction, but that usually happens as a decision on the merits in a case for discipline. As reported by The Hill, however, Hunter Biden's license has been suspended pending the proceeding. This means that the suspension is an interim suspension, until it is decided whether he will be disciplined. Although interim suspensions of this type are not unheard of (that is what was imposed on Rudy Giuliani in New York, for example), they are not that common. Usually, lawyers are allowed to continue to practice until a disciplinary proceeding is decided. The Hill has to full story here.
UPDATE 8/5/24: Hunter Biden's lawyers reply to the court's order to show cause. Here is the full story.
July 29, 2024
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued a new formal ethics opinion (ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 512) on ethical duties related to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools. The summary states:
To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.
You can access the full opinion here.
UPDATE 8/5/24: Here are a couple of comments on the new Ethics Opinion:
The Hill is reporting that a federal judge threatened to sanction Hunter Biden’s attorneys for making “false statements” in their motion asking to dismiss his criminal charges in California. Go here for the full story.
The Washington D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) has accused a former federal prosecutor who oversaw more than 200 cases related to protests of former President Trump’s 2017 inauguration of withholding evidence and of attempting to edit or obscure video evidence used against the defendants that otherwise could have been used to clear them of criminal charges. The Hill has more on the case here.
Here is an interesting fact scenario. A criminal defense lawyer does not effectively represent a suspect during a police interview, and the police obtains information useful to the prosecution. The lawyer then realizes that he should try to fix the problem but doing so would require him to file to suppress evidence from that interview on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. But this would mean the lawyer has to admit their own ineffective assistance which would be self-incriminating (and would probably require the lawyer to testify in a fact finding hearing). So the lawyer does not file to suppress the evidence and continues to represent the defendant. After the defendant is convicted, represented by a different lawyer, the defendant asks for the conviction to be overturned. What should the court do?
In a recent case with similar facts, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld an order for a new trial. Go here to read about the case and access a link to the opinion. The Legal Profession Blog has a summary and some key passages here.
A Trump supporter lawyer who was convicted of two counts of election fraud, based upon evidence establishing that he had voted in both Florida and in Ohio in the 2020 presidential election as well as in the 2022 general election and who was later suspended from the practice of law in both Ohio and Florida, was more recently disbarred in New York. For more on the case, go to the Legal Profession Blog here.
July 12, 2024
Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane has dismissed Rudy Giuliani’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy, removing a shield that for six months froze two Georgia election workers’ efforts to collect their $148 million defamation judgment. In the ruling (available here), the judge commented on Giuliani’s “continued failure” to provide financial transparency.
Giuliani's case involves the interests of the two Georgia election workers who won a defamation claim against him, in addition to those of Dominion Voting Systems, and Giuliani’s former assistant Noelle Dunphy. The latter two have pending lawsuits, while the Georgia workers have an enforceable judgment for many times the value of Giuliani’s assets.
Because they’re not all going to get the money they seek from Giuliani, the ones with perfected claims would like to attach all his assets now. Dominion and Dunphy have argued that the case should remain as a Chapter 11 bankruptcy claim, while the Freeman plaintiffs urged the court to dismiss the case entirely.
And that is exactly what the judge did, leaving [for the moment] nothing for Dominion, whose defamation suit is still in discovery, or for Dunphy, who is suing Giuliani in state court for assault and various labor violations. Of course those parties would prefer that the court retain jurisdiction and adjudicate their claims while a Chapter 11 trustee babysits the debtor to ensure he doesn’t loot the estate. I imagine appeals will follow.
For more on the story you can check:
Law & Crime (‘Continued failure’: Rudy Giuliani has bankruptcy case dismissed by angry judge who points out numerous ‘troubling’ discovery violations)
Courthouse News Service (Judge chides Rudy Giuliani for ‘troubling’ conduct, tosses NY bankruptcy case)
Above the Law (Rudy Giuliani Falls Ass Backwards Out Of Bankruptcy)
As reported in The Guardian (here), "Alec Baldwin’s involuntary manslaughter trial came to a dramatic end on Friday, after a New Mexico judge dismissed the case against the actor and found that the state had improperly withheld evidence related to how live rounds of ammunition ended up on the film set where the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot. Just days after courtroom proceedings had begun, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled in favor of the defense and agreed that the charges against Baldwin should be dropped, finding that the state had concealed evidence that would have been favorable to the actor. The dismissal, made with prejudice, puts an end to the involuntary manslaughter case against Baldwin."
Law & Crime has more on the story here. According to this account, the motions hearing "eventually spiraled into something like a Russian nesting doll of discovery violations" and near the end of the hearing it was revealed that the "first chair" prosecutor — the one who gave the prosecution’s opening statement during the trial — had resigned.
Now the question is whether the prosecutor(s) will have to face discipline for their conduct. I guess we will have to wait and see.
MSNBC has more on the story here.
Long time readers of this blog may remember old posts about how some states have slowly approved regulation to allow “non-lawyer professionals” to provide legal services. The terminology used to describe the professionals and the types of services varies quite a bit, but the idea is to allow certain trained professionals who are not admitted to the practice of law to provide some services that would otherwise be considered to be exclusively reserved for lawyers. Obviously, the idea is to provide more (and perhaps less expensive) access to legal representation given that studies have always shown that there is a need for such access.
The success of these programs has also varied, with at least one eventually being abandoned, but that would be the subject of a different conversation.
I am writing today to report that, as of last month, New Hampshire extended such a program for another five years and expanded the “jurisdiction” of the professionals allowed to participate in it to include all state Circuit Courts. Eligible paralegals under the program may appear in cases related to family law, domestic violence, stalking orders of protection, and landlord-tenant cases. The new statutory language can be found in the New Hampshire Statutes, Title XXX: Occupations and Professions, Chapter 311 (Attorneys and Counselors), Section 311:2a (Legal Services by Paraprofessionals). You can find a link to the section here, although as of the time of this post, the section’s language has not been updated with the newly approved statute. The original statute (as of now) is here. It is possible that some time soon you will be able to use this same link to see the new language, but as of now this link takes you to the statute that went into effect in 2023. If you want the new version, look for the language adopted in June 2024.
Thank you very much to Jonathan Teller-Elsberg for the update!
In a move that I suspect surprised no one, Rudy Giuliani was been disbarred in New York. You can read the full order here. It concludes, in part that,
Contrary to respondent’s allegations, there is nothing on the record before us that would permit the conclusion that respondent lacked knowledge of the falsehood of the numerous statements that he made, and that he had a good faith basis to believe them to be true. On the contrary, as the Referee properly found, the 16 acts of falsehoods carried out by respondent were deliberate and constituted a transparent pattern of conduct intended and designed to deceive. More specifically, as the Referee aptly described, respondent “told numerous lies in the numerous forums all designed to create distrust of the elective system of our country in the minds of the citizens and to destroy their confidence in the legitimacy of our government.” Undeterred, respondent went as far as to attempt to deceive this tribunal by his numerous inconsistent statements before the Referee and the AGC.
As you probably recall, Giuliani was suspended from practice in New York in 2021 pending his disciplinary proceeding (see here) and later recommended for disbarment in Washington Dc (see here). The proceeding took a long time to unfold in New York but the decision was finally announced this week.
For all my posts about the claims against Giuliani, go here.
You can read coverage and commentary about the disbarment in New York, here:
The Hill, Politico, Law & Crime, Courthouse News Service, MSNBC, The Legal Profession Blog
UPDATE July 12, 2024: Giuliani's hearing to determine if he should be disbarred in Washington DC was held recently. For a report, go to Law & Crime, here.
The Legal Talk Network has a new article with links to podcasts on emerging trends in legal tech here.
Over at Jotwell, Nora Freeman Engstrom has posted a short review of a new article by Lucian Pera called Ethics, Lawyering, and Regulation in a Time of Great Change: Field Notes from the (R)evolution, 74 S.C. L. Rev. 801 (2023). As she points out, the article
"depicts a profession caught in a storm of transformation, both driven by—and driving—the “twin factors” of economic and regulatory change. In the midst of this rapidly shifting environment, and as some states (most notably, Utah and Arizona) relax their legal practice regulations while most others cling to the traditional rules, the two modes of regulation will invariably collide. In a timely and accessible piece, Pera maps this collision, unearths under-explored complexities, and offers tentative thoughts on a possible path forward."
You can read the review here.
You can read the full article here.
As I am sure you know by now, the ABA amended the comment to Model Rule 1.1 some years ago to include a new paragraph [8] that says "To 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, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject."
And thus the duty to be competent about "technology" was born. Now adopted by a majority of jurisdictions, as the comment says, lawyers have a duty to learn about and to stay up to date with developments in "technology" that relates to the practice of law.
Accordingly, there are a number of ethics opinions out there on this matter and LawSites is now reporting (here) on a new one specifically on the use of generative AI.
The opinion was issued by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association and it makes one point very clear: lawyers are required to maintain competence across all technological means relevant to their practices, and that includes the use of generative AI.
You can read the opinion here.
Here is the latest in our "how not to practice law" series. As reported in Law & Crime, the Colorado disciplinary board recently suspended an attorney’s law license for six months after she pleaded guilty to her third DUI charge in 18 months — and she reportedly showed up drunk to her sentencing. You can read more about the story here.
The ABA recently posted a new podcast on issues related to Model Rule 1.9 (on duties owed to former clients. You can listen to it here.
Meanwhile, for those of you who like to use video "vignettes" when teaching Professional Responsibility, there is a new collection produced by Scalia Law School. If you are interested, here is some information about the project. You can access the vignettes here.
The last time we heard from former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis she had just been suspended for 3 years for conviction related to her role in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. See here.
She is back in the news today, this time for pleading not-guilty to forgery, fraud and conspiracy charges related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Arizona. See here.
Suppose Lawyer A is in litigation and, in response to a request for documents, opposing counsel (Lawyer B) sends a link to a file stored in a service like Dropbox.* When Lawyer A opens the file using the link, he or she discovers the link provides access to B's client's documents which were not expected to be disclosed and are likely to be considered confidential.
This is what happened in a recent case in New York called Pursuit Credit Special Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Krunchcash, LLC (May 30, 2024), in which the lower court determined that Lawyer A was required to notify Lawyer B that the link contained folders that "counsel knew or should have known were confidential or privileged." The court imposed a sanction on defendants and their counsel for accessing and downloading the folders from Dropbox.
The order was affirmed in an opinion (available here) that is about seven sentences long. It cites, among other things, NY's rule 4.4(b) which is based on the equivalent Model Rule which states that "[a] lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender."
So, going back to our initial question: in those circumstances, Lawyer A had a duty to inform Lawyer B that Lawyer B had inadvertently disclosed documents. That much is clear. But nothing else is, and the incident raises a number of interesting question not addressed by the court.
First of all, why does the court refer to the documents as privileged? The court refers to the documents in question as "corporate files." What were these documents? If they were corporate records that the client gave the lawyer to store, there is no reason to believe that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege, so calling them so would be a mistake. But I am willing to proceed on the assumption that even if not privileged, they could be considered confidential.
Next, in addition to the duty to inform the other side of their mistake, did Lawyer A have a duty to delete the link immediately or could Lawyer A have looked at the documents to confirm they were privileged before doing anything else? The rule does not address that, and the comment to the Model Rule explicitly states that the rule does attempt to decide whether the lawyer who receives the information has a duty to return (or in this case delete) the document (or link to it).
The court's opinion suggests that the lawyer had a duty "to sequester the inadvertently disclosed files" (which I guess means the lawyer could keep them but not look at them) but the court does not cite anything in support of this suggestion.
And then there are the questions related to the conduct of the lawyer who sent the link to begin with, which the court does not discuss. It can be argued that this lawyer violated their duty of confidentiality and their duty of competence by disclosing protected information by mistake. Could the lawyer be subject to discipline for this? In theory, Yes; absolutely. But. as you know, the reality is that an isolated act of negligence will not likely lead to discipline.
Could the lawyer be liable in tort for negligence? Again, in theory yes since the conduct is clearly a breach of duty, but whether there is an actionable cause of action depends on whether the conduct caused an injury and it does not sound that that was the case in this instance. Lucky for the lawyer!
I am willing to bet that the ABA has issued an ethics opinion exploring some of the issues that arise out of a situation like this and the application of a rule like Model Rule 4.4(b) but I have not searched for it.
________________
* If you don't know what Dropbox is, this post is for you because you may be in violation of the rule regarding competence since competence requires you to at least "keep abreast of . . . the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology" and Dropbox is pretty old technology.
Back in November 2023 I reported that the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee held a meeting to discuss a number of proposals, including one to adopt a rule based on Model Rule 8.4(g). You can read my comments about the hearing and the proposal here.
Yet, I had not seen anything about the proposal since then. So, I was very surprised when I read in Faughnan on Ethics that the proposed amendment was officially adopted and that the new rule would go into effect in July. See here.
I say I was surprised not because I was surprised to hear that the new rule was adopted but because I have not seen it reported anywhere here in Illinois!
If you are a long time reader of this blog you know that I have criticized the Model Rule and the versions of the rule adopted in some other jurisdictions for being vulnerable to attack under First Amendment principles. The adopted language in both the rule and its comment in Illinois is not as robust as the rule adopted in New York, but it is not bad.
The original proposal included explicit language in the text of the rule itself stating that the rule would not apply to Constitutionally protected speech or conduct. Unfortunately, that language was deleted from the rule and moved to the comment.
Another issue with the adopted language is that while the text of the rule states that it is limited to conduct "in the practice of law", the explanation of what "in the practice of law" means included in the comment is the same used in the ABA Model Rule's comment to describe conduct "related to the practice of law" which is a broader concept.
We will have to wait and see how the rule is applied and interpreted, and whether it will get challenged as others have in other jurisdictions.
The new Illinois Rule appears in Rule 8.4(j). You can see a redline version here, and a clean version here.
If you are a long term reader of this blog you know that I have been following the cases against many of the lawyers for the Trump administration, the most famous of whom is probably Rudy Giuliani. And, you also probably know that his license was suspended in both New York and the District of Columbia while his disciplinary proceedings are pending.
Today I am here to report that, as expected, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended disbarment. The Legal Profession blog has a summary and a link to the decision here.
More coverage in The Hill, MSNBC and The Conversation.
Do you remember Jenna Ellis, a relatively insignificant member of the "Kraken team" of lawyers for the Trump campaign who paraded around lying about the 2020 election? Back in March 2023, to avoid a harsher sanction, she agreed to a censure (with no suspension) in Colorado for her lying, only to proceed to lie about it in the media later on. Some time later she was indicted in Georgian and, true to form, she also pled guilty to avoid a harsher sentence.
After the settlement in Colorado, I wondered here why the Colorado authorities thought she deserved such a light sanction when Rudy Giuliani was likely to get disbarred for the same conduct. After her guilty plea agreement in Georgia, I wondered here if she could be sanctioned in Colorado even if her plea agreement had been worded precisely to try to avoid sanctions.
Well, my questions have been answered. A few days ago it was reported that Ellis has been suspended for three years in Colorado. The Hill has the story and a link to the order itself here.
In commenting on the story, Above the Law has a profile of Ellis here recounting her employment history and her embellishing of her resume. (spoiler alert: she apparently lost her job as a traffic court prosecutor for incompetence, which won her unemployment benefits after an appeal held that she had “perform[ed her] duties to the best of her ability” given the “deficiencies in her education and experience” and that she had committed irreparable egregious acts in just a few of her cases. You know, not all of them; just a few...) It is worth a quick read.
MSNBC also has the news here.
In my previous post I mentioned a couple of recent posts regarding AI and the practice of law. Here is another one: "Is The Legal Industry Ready For AI?; It's crucial to consider these questions" published in Above the Law. You can read the full article hereread the full article here.
Is it justified to impose disciplinary sanctions if the lawyer has received a presidential pardon? New Jersey thinks so. Here is the story, as reported in the Legal Profession Blog.
As all of you know, the ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility frequently issues Formal Opinions to help answer questions and clarify aspects related to the interpretation and application of the ABA Model Rules. Last week, the Committee issued a new opinion on confidentiality. Its summary reads as follows:
Rule 1.6 prohibits a lawyer from posting questions or comments relating to a representation to a listserv, even in hypothetical or abstract form, without the client’s informed consent if there is a reasonable likelihood that the lawyer’s questions or comments will disclose information relating to the representation that would allow a reader then or later to infer the identity of the lawyer’s client or the situation involved. A lawyer may, however, participate in listserv discussions such as those related to legal news, recent decisions, or changes in the law, without a client’s informed consent if the lawyer’s contributions will not disclose, or be reasonably likely to lead to the disclosure of, information relating to a client representation.
Whether the conclusion is limited to listsevs is actually not that relevant since the same can be said of any instance in which a lawyer discusses a client's representation in a public setting (when addressing a group discussion, as an example in a meeting, when teaching a class, when participating in a CLE program, etc, etc.) But the focus of the opinion seems to be on lawyers who turn to listservs to seek help on a matter they are working on for a client, a practice I can safely say is very common in at least one of the listservs I follow.
Lawyers like talking about their work, their clients and often share war stories or use their experiences as examples to illustrate issues, or to ask questions. Often, they also ask others for help in finding support for an argument or to find sources of information on how to handle a particular issue. The problem is that, in doing so, it is possible to disclose confidential information, which, of course, could be a problem.
Yet, although the opinion follows the logic of the broad approach to confidentiality reflected in the rules, it was quickly criticized by some, ironically, in a listserv I follow. Likewise, Bob Ambrogi, who writes about legal technology in the website LawSites, wrote a good article in which concludes that the opinion "takes an overly heavy-handed approach to an issue it should have addressed, if at all, maybe 20 years ago. In other words it is too much, too late." You should read his opinion here.
Micheal Kennedy also has a comment on the opinion here.
As reported by The Hill, the D.C. Court of Appeals has temporarily suspended the law license of former President Trump’s ex-lawyer following a similar order made in late March by a California State Bar Court. You can read the court's order here. Go the The Hill for the full story.
A judge in California turned down an urgent plea Wednesday from John Eastman to allow him to keep practicing law while he fights an effort to permanently revoke his license. The judge ruled that Eastman’s motion failed to show that he no longer presents a threat to the public.
Politico has the full story here.
April 27. 2024
As reported in Above the Law: Confronted with an ethics investigation zeroing in on a number of different types of conduct that justified discipline, a lawyer in New Hampshire apparently thought he could get out of his troubles by destroying or altering evidence stored in his computer. He could not; and got disbarred.
Above the Law has the full story here.
UPDATE 5/1/2024: The ABA Journal has the story here.
March 20, 2024
The ABA Journal and Above the Law are reporting that the Washington Supreme Court has adopted alternative pathways to a law license, becoming the second state to do so in a little more than four months. The court approved three ways to bypass a bar exam, with different standards for law school graduates, law students and law clerks participating in a lawyer-tutoring program already in existence. All involve apprenticeships or internships.
You can read the different standards in the court's press release here. The ABA Journal has more details here. Above the Law has the story here.
UPDATE (April 13, 2024): Lex Blog has published a comment on the story here.
A disciplinary panel in Washington has found that Jeffrey Clark, a former high-ranking Justice Department official, violated ethics rules for lawyers in his attempt to aid Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. This is only a preliminary ruling that starts a process that could lead to the suspension or even permanent revocation of Clark’s license to practice law. So, stay tuned....
The Legal Profession Blog describes the process as follows:
"The Jeffrey Clark bar disciplinary hearing in the District of Columbia has now concluded its evidentiary phase. The Hearing Committee announced a non-binding conclusion that a disciplinary rule violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. It will make formal findings after receiving briefs from the parties.Those findings and conclusions will be reviewed by the Board on Professional Responsibility, which (unless it dismisses, which Disciplinary Counsel can appeal) will in turn be reviewed by the Court of Appeals."
1. Jenny Brobst (Memphis Law) recently posted an article offering a look at the role of technology and ethical competency rules, vis-a-vis how tech has rolled out unevenly in the United States. You can take a look at it here.
2. Above the Law: Maybe We've Got The Artificial Intelligence In Law 'Problem' All Wrong
I think that issues related to the use of AI in the practice of law are the number 1 topic of the year and I see stories on it almost every day. Here is a list of links from the past few days:
Exploring the Impact of AI on the legal profession (podcast)
How Generative AI Will Improve Legal Service Delivery (Above the Law)
Judges To Generative AI: You're Out Of Order! (Above the Law)
AI Won’t Replace Lawyers -- But It Will Change How They Work (Above the Law)
AI Smarts For The Legal Sector: Preparing Your People And Content For AI (Above the Law)
A California judge has formally recommended that attorney John Eastman be disbarred for his role in Donald Trump's legal effort to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. You can read the decision and order here. The judge concluded that
While attorneys have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical and legal constraints. Eastman’s actions transgressed those ethical limits by advocating, participating in and pursuing a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation, and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference. Given the serious and extensive nature of Eastman’s unethical actions, the most severe available professional sanction is warranted to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system.
More details and commentary here:
Today the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published Formal Opinion 510 on whether an attorney should be disqualified from representing a new client against a former prospective client. Go here to access the full text of the opinion (you can download it too). Here is the opinion's summary:
Under Rule 1.18 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer who was consulted about a matter by a prospective client, but not retained, is disqualified from representing another client who is adverse to the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received from the prospective client “disqualifying information”—i.e., information that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client in the matter. But, if the lawyer “took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client,” and the firm takes specified procedural precautions, then the lawyer’s conflict of interest is not imputed to others in the lawyer’s firm.
This opinion addresses the “reasonable measures” necessary to avoid the imputation of conflicts of interest under Rule 1.18.1 First, information that relates to “whether to represent the prospective client” includes information relating to (1) whether the lawyer may undertake or conduct the representation (e.g., whether a conflict of interest exists, whether the lawyer can conduct the work competently, whether the prospective client seeks assistance in a crime or fraud, and whether the client seeks to pursue a nonfrivolous goal), and (2) whether the engagement is one the lawyer is willing to accept. Second, to avoid imputation, even if information relates to “whether to represent the prospective client,” the information sought must be “reasonably necessary” to make this determination. Third, to avoid exposure to disqualifying information that is not reasonably necessary to determine whether to undertake the representation, the lawyer must limit the information requested from the prospective client and should caution the prospective client at the outset of the initial consultation not to volunteer information pertaining to the matter beyond what the lawyer specifically requests.
You can access all other ABA Ethics Opinions (dating back to 1984) here. The most recent ones are available to everyone, but the older ones are now available only to members. So if you are not a member, download what you need now before it becomes unavailable.
LawSites is reporting (here) that a new website that provides access to legal research called descrybe.ai is focused on using artificial intelligence to provide free and easy access to court opinions and that it recently began to offer access to AI-generated summaries of all available state supreme and appellate court opinions from throughout the United States.
The headline in Above the Law reads: "Convicted Lawyer Too Well-Connected To Face Discipline". Elsewhere, the story was reported as "After most Illinois Supreme Court justices recuse themselves, Ed Burke keeps his law license". The ABA Journal reported the story as "Convicted alderman keeps law license after recusals prevent state supreme court from acting." You may have heard or or read something like that somewhere else, but the full story is not what it seems.
These headlines suggest that a convicted lawyer could not be disciplined even though he was convicted of a crime. But that is not necessarily the case. What happened is that the Disciplinary Agency asked the Supreme Court of the state for an interim suspension because he was convicted of a crime. "Interim" means that the suspension would be in effect while the Agency decides the disciplinary case. Some justices in the Court recused themselves and there were not enough justices left (following the state constitution) to grant the petition.
This does not mean that the lawyer will not be disciplined, or that he will avoid discipline. The lawyer will avoid a suspension while it is decided whether he will be disciplined, but that is a different thing. It may very well be that the disciplinary agency decides to impose discipline -- in fact, it is possible the agency will decide to disbar the lawyer.
Now, what happens after that, I don't know. If the disciplinary agency disbars the attorney, he then has the right to appeal to the state's supreme court. If the same justices who recused themselves regarding the interim petition recuse themselves from the appeal, the court can't hear the appeal. Does that end the case and the decision of the disciplinary agency stands? That's my guess, but I have not looked into it.
LawSites recently published two articles with commentary about the justice gap and legal tech that are worth reading.
In the first one, LawSites's editor Bob Ambrogi argues that "[t]he justice gap in legal technology is a reflection of the justice gap more generally, and both reflect a capitalist society in which the balance of wealth and resources is wildly out of whack. But more can be done. " You can read the article here.
In response, Jess Lu and Mark Chandler argue that "Justice tech — legal tech that helps low-income folks with no or some ability to pay, that assists the lawyers who serve those folks, and that makes the courts more efficient and effective — must contend with a higher hurdle than wooing Silicon Valley VCs: the civil justice system itself." The article is available here.
If you are a college football fan you know about "naming rights"... So what used to be the Fiesta Bowl suddenly became the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, and the LA Bowl became the Jimmy Kimmel LA Bowl, and so on. Brands and people pay a lot of money to have their brand or name associated with a big event.
It is a form of advertising, right? So, would it be ethical for a law firm to buy naming rights. It has been done for law schools, of course. Temple University Law School (where I got my Masters degree) is now the James Beasly Law School, for example.
But have you seen a sports event named after a law firm?
And then there are "official partners" associated with leagues. Different leagues have official partners, and they promote them as such. Thus, you have "the official car of the NFL" (it's Toyota, in case you did not know), or the "official pizza of the NFL" (as of two years ago it was Little Ceasars, which is embarrassing if you like pizza!)
But one thing the NFL does not have is an official law firm.
So, why am I babbling about this? Because, other than naming rights on a law school, I have never seen a law firm have naming rights or an official partnership claim with a sports league or event.
Until now. Enter pickleball, the self proclaimed fastest growing sport in the US today and the firm of Lerner & Rowe, which was recently announced as the "official personal injury attorneys" of USA Pickleball:
USA Pickleball, the National Governing Body for pickleball in the U.S., today announced personal injury law firm Lerner & Rowe as its Official Injury Attorney in a year-round partnership that welcomes the firm into America’s fastest-growing sport, with nearly 50 million pickleball players in the United States according to the Association of Pickleball Players in 2023.
Lerner & Rowe will serve as the Presenting Partner of the USA Pickleball Golden Ticket tournament in Mesa, Arizona this April. The firm will have a strong presence throughout the event that is expected to host 1,200 of the best players from Arizona and surrounding areas competing for their spot at Nationals. Additionally, Lerner & Rowe will continue supporting USA Pickleball’s mission in the community through community clinics, introducing underserved children to the game of pickleball and providing them with equipment to continue playing upon completion of the program.
Here is the full announcement in USA Pickleball's website.
Here is a 50 minute NPR program on the right to an attorney and the role of public defenders in the criminal justice system.
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility just released a new Formal Opinion (Number 509). The title is Disqualification to Prevent the Misuse Use of “Confidential Government Information” and the summary reads as follows:
Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(c) protects a person from the misuse of certain information about the person that the government used its authority to acquire. The confidential information protected by Rule 1.11(c) is defined by the Rule as information obtained under government authority about a person which the government is prohibited from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose and is not otherwise available to the public. The Rule provides that a lawyer who acquired the information while serving as a government officer or employee is disqualified from representing a “private client” whose interests are adverse to prevent the confidential government information from being used to the material disadvantage of that person. The Rule applies regardless of whether the lawyer seeking to represent the private client has left government employ or office or maintains a private law practice (e.g., a part-time practice) while still in government employ or office. The Rule applies to a lawyer representing a “private client,” meaning a client whom the lawyer represents in private practice, regardless of whether the client is a public entity or private individual or entity.
For now you can access (and download) the opinion here. After some time, it will be archived and available to members only, so go get it now.
A couple of days ago I posted that I think a lawyer in good standing in a state should be allowed to practice law in any other jurisdiction. And just a few hours after I posted that comment, I heard that a working group of the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility has requested public comments on an Issue Paper on possible amendments to the model rules which would recognize permissible cross-border practice.
You can read the notice asking for public comments here. You can read the Issue Paper here. You can read more about the issue here.
Should A License To Practice Law Be More Like A Driver's License? In a word, YES! I do think so. I think that once admitted in one state lawyers should be free to practice in any other state - as long as they are in good standing and comply with the state rules of professional conduct, of course. I understand that there are lots of state variances when it comes to local rules and procedure but all lawyers are trained in how to do research and figure out the law of any jurisdiction.
I am mentioning this today because I just saw this post in Above the Law:
"How do you only practice law within your state boundaries when we’re in a global economy and a global world? It’s kind of a preposterous concept, right? [The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers]’s point is, ‘Do I stop knowing how to drive when I drive outside of Maryland? And as soon as I get to the border in Virginia, I’ve forgotten how to drive?’ It doesn’t make sense."
This is a quote by Charity Anastasio, in comments given during an ABA Techshow 2024 panel titled, “One Bar License, Will Travel—Are Changes in Multi-Jurisdictional Rules on the Way?” Anastasio, who also is the chair of the ABA Law Practice Division’s Professional Development Board, went on to encourage lawyers to “[s]ay it loud, say it proud. We should be able to practice anywhere we can drive.”
February 18, 2024
As reported in Courthouse News: An appeals court in Missouri lambasted a pro se litigant for submitting multiple “fictitious cases” conjured up by the A.I. chat bot ChatGPT, which offered citations “that have potentially real case names — presumably the result of algorithmic serendipity,” that pointed to either non-existent rulings or to irrelevant ones. The litigant must pay $10,000 to opposing counsel for wasting their time with the “frivolous appeal.” The court's ruling is here. For other instances of similar conduct in Courthouse News go here and here.
UPDATE 2-20-2024:
Legal Ethics Lawyer has more on the story here.
I have blogged before about the unfortunate reality that even 60 years after Gigeon v. Wainwright, there are still deficiencies in the process to get access to representation for people who can't afford it. See here, for example, and the section on right to counsel for lots more on the subject.
Today I am writing, unfortunately, to point out a new article in The Marshall Project on how many defendants are getting charged fees to pay for their "free" appointed counsel.
According to the report, the reality is that legal representation by appointed counsel is rarely free. The Supreme Court has found the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel but allows states, in most cases, to try to recoup the costs and that more than 40 do so, according to a 2022 report by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association.
The report focuses on the practice in Iowa, which it says takes these efforts to the extreme. According to their investigation, not only does Iowa impose some of the highest fees in the nation — affecting tens of thousands of people each year — it also charges poor people for legal aid even if they are acquitted or the cases against them are dropped.
Two weeks ago, the Illinois Supreme Court amended a Supreme Court Rule to add “sexual harassment prevention” to the enumerated topic areas for which lawyers may receive professional responsibility CLE (PR CLE) hours. The amended Rule 794(d)(1) now reads as follows:
Each attorney subject to these Rules shall complete a minimum of six of the total CLE hours for each two-year reporting period in the area of professionalism, civility, legal ethics, sexual harassment prevention, diversity and inclusion, or mental health and substance abuse.
2Civility has more details and commentary here. LexBlog has the story here.
Here is another "how not to practice law" story. The lessons from these stories always seem so obvious; yet here we are. In this one, the hearing board found that the lawyer falsified some documents. He was suspended for six months for violating Rule 8.4(c) regarding dishonesty. The Legal Profession blog has the story here.
I missed this report when it came out, but better late than never... Here it is.
This is not the first time we have seen this example of "how not to practice law," but there are two interesting questions. In this particular instance, discussed in the Legal Profession Blog, the lawyer was charged with "attempting" to violate rule 1.1 on competence. So my first question is: why charge with attempt to violate a rule? Can't we argue that appearing drunk before the court in and of itself constitutes incompetence?
The second question is common to many cases: what should be the proper sanction? Is it a mitigating factor if the lawyer has a health problem, mental health problem or issues with alcohol? Is it an aggravating factor? In this case, the lawyer also had a history of disciplinary sanctions; yet, the sanction was reduced from 90 days to 30 days.
The issue of how to reply to negative online reviews is not new. If you go to the "internet" section of this blog and scroll down you will find a number of stories on it. The most recent one is from October of last year on an Arizona Ethics Opinion that concludes lawyers can disclose confidential information when replying to negative online reviews.
Today I am writing to link to a recent post over at LexBlog that again provides basic tips on the subject. Here it is.
How will generative AI affect digital investigations and e-discovery? The ABA Journal has an answer here.
About a week ago, I posted a link to a comment on whether employment agreements that require a departing lawyer to compensate the firm for clients that follow the lawyer would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The article related to a case in which a firm sued a departing lawyer seeking compensation because a bunch of clients left with the lawyer.
Faughnan on Ethics now has added to the discussion with a post on the case.
A couple of days ago I reported that the Florida Bar recently issued an ethics opinion on using generative AI technology in the practice of law.
Meanwhile, noted law blogger Carolyn Elefant has published a short guide on best practices on using AI in the practice of law. You can see her post on it here and you can download the guide here.
If you have been watching the news about the case against former president Trump in Georgia, you know that the defendant has argued the case should be dropped or that the prosecutor should be disqualified because of certain alleged inappropriate conduct.
The conduct in question should be taken seriously but it is irrelevant to the case in question.
Here are two articles that explain why:
Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law, in Just Security, by Norman L. Eisen, Joyce Vance and Richard Painter
Defendants in the Georgia election case have no reason to complain — even if the Fani Willis allegations are true, in CNN, by Bruce Green
Last December I reported that the Florida Bar was considering an opinion on the use of AI as part of the practice law. See here.
Today I am writing to report that the opinion was approved and published. See here. It concludes that lawyers may ethically use generative AI technologies, provided they are careful to adhere to their ethical obligations.
For the text of the opinion go here. Read more on the story here. The ABA Journal has more on the story here.
Michael Kennedy, over at Ethical Grounds, discusses the issue here.
The Legal Profession blog recently published a summary of a recent case that earns the most recent entry in our "how not to practice law" series. Here are the basic facts:
The parties are engaged in a "virtual trial" which is being recorded. The court warns a lawyer not to coach a witness. Technical difficulties interrupt the trial. During the break, but while still being recorded, the lawyer coaches the witness in violation of the court's admonition. The judge then watches the recording. Guess what happens next.
Dismissal with prejudice. Go here for the full story.
What should happen next? Would you represent the client against the lawyer for malpractice?
About two week ago I posted a link to a year in review program that discussed the top ten stories of 2023 in legal ethics. See here.
Now, here is another one. This is a link to the video of Legaltech Week’s year-end show, in which a panel of journalists and bloggers picked the year’s top stories in legal tech and innovation. You can also find it on YouTube, here.
LegalTech Week, by the way is a weekly podcast on topics related to law practice and technology.
2Civilty has published a short article on diversity in the profession: Women Associates Reach Important Milestone, But Legal Profession Faces Many of the Same Diversity Challenges
Here is an interesting story about a lawyer who was recently fined over $250,000 for trying to support a claim with a fake newspaper article. According to the story, he sought to enter the news article into the record for “demonstrative purposes.”
Now, stop! That's not how the rules of evidence work. If the lawyer was trying to get a newspaper article admitted, it must have been to prove the fact that the article was in fact published -- which is not likely to happen because the other side would rather concede the point in order to avoid having the jury get access to the article so they can read it -- OR to prove what the article actually said, which would be inadmissible hearsay unless one of the exceptions applied.
So what does it mean to admit an article "for demonstrative purposes"? Well, apparently, it meant that the lawyer wanted to "prove" what could have been written in some other alternative universe in which the news was what he wanted them to be -- because the article was a fake ... in which case the proof should be inadmissible as being fabricated or, at best, speculation.
Any way you look at it, what the lawyer tried to do did not make sense and could be interpreted as an attempt to mislead the court or the jury.
And then, as a bonus, the lawyer didn’t show up for the sanctions hearing.
You can read the story (with links) here.
