3M has agreed to pay $850 million to settle a long-standing lawsuit filed by Minnesota, over the company’s disposal of perfluorochemicals used in Scotchgard and other products, which the state says polluted drinking water sources. Go here for more details.
Why is this relevant? Because this was the case in which the law firm Covington & Burling was disqualified for allegedly violating the "hot potato doctrine." Go here, here, here and here for my original posts on the case. The disqualification order was later remanded for further proceedings.
Professor Alberto Bernabe - The University of Illinois-Chicago School of Law
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Legal Talk Network: Podcast on Limited License Legal Technicians
Long time readers of this blog will remember the debate on whether non lawyers should be licensed to provide limited legal services and how Washington state became the first jurisdiction to recognize Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLTs). See here, here, here and here, for some of my posts on this starting back in 2015. Go here for a 2017 podcast on the subject.
Last week, the Legal Talk Network published a new podcast on the subject. You can access it here.
Last week, the Legal Talk Network published a new podcast on the subject. You can access it here.
Comments on proposed changes to the ABA rules on advertising
As you know, the ABA is considering a series of changes to some of its rules related to advertising. As I have commented before, the changes are somewhat controversial, but mostly because many think they are not bold enough. Go here for a summary of the issues.
2Civility, a website of The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, has published a short comment on the proposed changes that includes interesting comments from readers.
Also, Avvo's Lawyernomics has published (here) a comment called "Why the ABA’s Proposed Attorney Advertising Rule Changes Don’t Go Nearly Far Enough."
Avvo's comment is interesting but not quite well reasoned. One of its main points is that states should eliminate rule 7.2 (and some others) entirely because the only rule needed is 7.1 which bans the publication of false or misleading advertising.
First of all, if we are going to eliminate something entirely, I'd say let's get rid of the notion of "misleading." But that aside, the problem with arguing that everything can be "dealt with" by looking at the principle in rule 7.1 is that that principle is different than the one expressed in rule 7.2.
The principle in 7.1 is that the state has the authority to regulate speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. Evidently, if the speech is not protected, the state can regulate it. The principle in rule 7.2 is that, in addition to that, under certain circumstances the state can also regulate speech that is protected.
Opponents of the regulation of advertising can argue that the state should not engage in the regulation of protected speech or that the regulation should be more limited than it is now. That is a valid argument over which reasonable people can disagree. But the basis of the argument is a debate on whether regulation is a good idea as a policy matter; not that rule 7.1 already covers it.
2Civility, a website of The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, has published a short comment on the proposed changes that includes interesting comments from readers.
Also, Avvo's Lawyernomics has published (here) a comment called "Why the ABA’s Proposed Attorney Advertising Rule Changes Don’t Go Nearly Far Enough."
Avvo's comment is interesting but not quite well reasoned. One of its main points is that states should eliminate rule 7.2 (and some others) entirely because the only rule needed is 7.1 which bans the publication of false or misleading advertising.
First of all, if we are going to eliminate something entirely, I'd say let's get rid of the notion of "misleading." But that aside, the problem with arguing that everything can be "dealt with" by looking at the principle in rule 7.1 is that that principle is different than the one expressed in rule 7.2.
The principle in 7.1 is that the state has the authority to regulate speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. Evidently, if the speech is not protected, the state can regulate it. The principle in rule 7.2 is that, in addition to that, under certain circumstances the state can also regulate speech that is protected.
Opponents of the regulation of advertising can argue that the state should not engage in the regulation of protected speech or that the regulation should be more limited than it is now. That is a valid argument over which reasonable people can disagree. But the basis of the argument is a debate on whether regulation is a good idea as a policy matter; not that rule 7.1 already covers it.
Comment on ABA Opinion on whether a judge can independently research adjudicative facts on the internet
Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach has published a short comment on the ABA's Formal Opinion 478 on the restrictions imposed by the 2007 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct on a judge searching the internet for information helpful in deciding a case. The opinion concludes that Rule 2.9(C) of the Model Code prohibits a judge from researching adjudicative facts on the internet unless a fact is subject to judicial notice. You can read the comment here. You can read the opinion here.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Trump's budget proposal would eliiminate all funding for the largest single funder of civil legal aid for low-income people
At a time when the legal profession continues to debate how to best provide access to legal services for those who can't afford it, the Trump's administration budget proposal is trying once again to eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corp., the largest single funder of civil legal aid for low-income people.
ABA President Hilarie Bass issued a statement Friday saying the administration’s latest proposal to defund the LSC “is unwarranted and should be dead on arrival.”
The president also sought to cut all funds to the LSC last year but Congress kept the LSC budget at last year’s level, and at one point added $15 million to fund legal services for victims of natural disasters.
Go to the ABA Journal for more details.
ABA President Hilarie Bass issued a statement Friday saying the administration’s latest proposal to defund the LSC “is unwarranted and should be dead on arrival.”
The president also sought to cut all funds to the LSC last year but Congress kept the LSC budget at last year’s level, and at one point added $15 million to fund legal services for victims of natural disasters.
Go to the ABA Journal for more details.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Update on the Florida case challenging the notion of unathorized practice of law (and maybe the state's authority to regulate the practice of law)
Last month I posted that one of the important stories to watch in 2018 was going to be an $11 million antitrust lawsuit against the Florida Bar filed by an online service that helps people resolve claims related to driving tickets challenging the state of Florida's authority to regulate the practice of law.
In the most recent developlemtn in the case, the Florida Supreme Court has issued an order directing the company - TIKD - to file a response to the Florida Bar's allegations that TIKD is practicing law without a license, and to show cause why the court should not issue an injunction blocking its services.
In the meantime, a state senator presented an amendment to a bill that would allow TIKD to conduct its business but later withdrew it after lawyers raised concerns about whether the company was practicing law without a license.
Faughnan on Ethics has a comment here.
Thanks to Roy Simon for the updates!
In the most recent developlemtn in the case, the Florida Supreme Court has issued an order directing the company - TIKD - to file a response to the Florida Bar's allegations that TIKD is practicing law without a license, and to show cause why the court should not issue an injunction blocking its services.
In the meantime, a state senator presented an amendment to a bill that would allow TIKD to conduct its business but later withdrew it after lawyers raised concerns about whether the company was practicing law without a license.
Faughnan on Ethics has a comment here.
Thanks to Roy Simon for the updates!
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Short summary of the ABA proposed changes to advertising rules (and some questions left unanswered)
Over at The Law for Lawyers Today, Karen Rubin has posted a short but informative comment on the ABA proposed changes to the Model Rules on advertising and solicitation. You should go take a look at it here.
As she explains, the proposed changes are not that bold and do leave some of the most controversial issues untouched. However, I do like the proposal that eases the approach to the ban on advertising as "specializing in" a particular area of law which I have criticized many times in the past. (See here, and here for example.)
As she explains, the proposed changes are not that bold and do leave some of the most controversial issues untouched. However, I do like the proposal that eases the approach to the ban on advertising as "specializing in" a particular area of law which I have criticized many times in the past. (See here, and here for example.)