New ABA Ethics Opinion on Clients with decision making limitations (formerly known as clients with diminished capacity) under Rule 1.14

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently released a new ethics opinion (number 525) on the recently amended Rule 1.14 on the duties owed to clients with decision making limitations."  You can download a copy here.  The abstract reads as follows: 

A lawyer who determines that his client has decision-making limitations is obligated under Rule 1.14 to maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship insofar as possible, and lawyers owe clients with decision-making limitations the same obligations as any other client, including abiding by the client’s decisions regarding the objectives of the representation. In certain situations, lawyers may take protective action to prevent substantial injury to clients with decision-making limitations. In taking protective action, a lawyer may disclose protected information, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent substantial injury to the client. While the recommendation of a guardianship may be an appropriate protective action in certain limited circumstances, the appointment of a guardian is a serious deprivation of the client’s rights and should not be pursued if other, less drastic, solutions are available. Although a lawyer may recommend or support the appointment of someone the lawyer reasonably believes would be a fit guardian, a lawyer whose client has decision-making limitations may not represent a third-party petitioning for a guardianship over the lawyer’s client. A lawyer representing a client with decision-making limitations may withdraw in accordance with Model Rule 1.16. 

 

A guide to advertising rules

LexBlog Publishing has published a long review/survey of the rules regarding lawyer advertising with links to the rule in every state.  If you are doing research on the subject, go check it out.  You can find it here.

Florida Bar Hides From Ethical Responsibilities

 Over at Above the Law, Joe Patrice has published a short post worth reading called Florida Bar Hides From Ethical Responsibilities, Shrugs As DHS Lawyer Compares Federal Judges To Murderers And Rapists.  You can find it here.  In it, he reminds us that 

When the Florida Bar didn’t want to perform the most basic of its duties as the state’s designated professional licensing authority, it invented a new rule out of whole cloth to justify punting a detailed ethics complaint about then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. The entity charged with maintaining the integrity of the Florida legal profession couldn’t even consider the complaint against Bondi because it cannot investigate a sitting officer appointed under the U.S. Constitution while in office.

More importantly, that even though over 120 scholars, practitioners, and former judges wrote to remind the Florida Bar that since Bondi left office their reasoning does not bar taking on the complaint, the Florida Bar has ignored it.  And now, the Florida Bar has used the same reasoning to refuse to investigate DHS General Counsel James Percival.

Patrice argues, and I agree, that 

If the profession is to survive this administration, licensing authorities need to get serious about sanctioning and disbarring these people. These are not close ethical calls. This is the exact behavior that we created professional discipline to punish, and every time a licensing authority looks the other way it undermines the rule of law and its own credibility.

 

Article on Lawyers’ Use of AI Notetakers and Client Conversations: Ethics Rules, Risks, and Best Practices

 Would using an AI assistant to take notes of a conversation with a client compromise attorney-client privilege or the duty of confidentiality?   Carolyn Elefant has a short article addressing the issue here and a similar "ethics opinion" here.

Two judicial circuits in Florida adopt rule on use of AI

 Two of Florida’s largest judicial circuits now require lawyers and self-represented litigants to disclose AI-generated court submissions, and to certify their accuracy, but according to at least one commentator the new rule essentially just "reminds lawyers of something that predates computers, the internet, and probably most of the courthouses we practice in today: if you put your name on a filing, you are responsible for what is in it."  For more on the story go here and here.

It is true that the new rule states the obvious: that it is required that all AI-generated content must be reviewed for accuracy.  But the new rule goes further by requiring actual disclosure of the use of AI, something I don't think many other jurisdictions are requiring explicitly yet.

According to one source, the order states that “[a]ny attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record, must disclose such use on the face of the filing.”

Interestingly, the two circuits apparently did not agree on the appropriate sanctions for violations of the rule.

Failure to comply with the order in the 11th Judicial Circuit could lead to sanctions that include, “striking of the filing; denial of requested relief; monetary sanctions; contempt proceedings; referral to The Florida Bar or other appropriate authority; and any other sanction deemed appropriate by the Court.”

Failure to comply with the order in the 17th Judicial Circuit could lead to sanctions that include, “contempt; striking of pleadings or dismissal of action; fines and/or the imposition of attorney’s fees; and referral to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings.”

Two recent posts on the incompetence and/or misconduct of "Trump lawyers"

 In Politico:  Trump’s inexperienced federal prosecutors are running into trouble in court

In Above the Law: Trump Lawyers Keep Missing Easy Filing Deadlines… How Is This Hard For Them?

Court Sanctions Lawyers From Both Sides In The Same Lawsuit For Filing Briefs With AI-Hallucinated Cases

As you know, cases involving lawyers getting in trouble for using AI generated cites of, or quotes from, non-existent cases keep piling up.  Check out this database for the latest count.

And, if you have been paying attention you might agree with me that the types of sanctions imposed by courts are becoming more severe.  It seems judges are losing patience.

So, today I am writing to report on a recent case in which a federal court in Mississippi sanctioned four attorneys, two on each side of a contract dispute.  What makes the case worth pointing out is not only that so many lawyers were sanctioned but that the court imposed a specific sanction I had not seen yet for cases like this.  The judge disqualified all the lawyers involved in the case, and two out-of-state attorneys who had been admitted pro-hac-vice to participate in the case were  barred from practicing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also said they would send a copy of the sanctions order to the state bars where each of the attorneys are practicing so that those jurisdictions could decide if parallel sanctions would be appropriate.

One of the lawyers reportedly stated that she did not know what hallucinated cases were, which, if true, can be seen as an admission of incompetence in itself at this point.

CNS has a link to the decision here, and Above the Law has a summary here and some analysis here.

New York adopts rule on use of AI

 Effective June 1, 2026, the New York State Unified Court System implemented a new statewide rule (Part 161) governing attorneys’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings. The rule permits attorneys to use AI tools when preparing submissions to the court and does not require disclosure of AI use. However, attorneys remain fully responsible for the accuracy of any AI-assisted work and must independently verify that filings do not contain fabricated cases, statutes, citations, or other false information.  You can read more details on the story here.

Are we seeing "a quiet restructuring of legal services?

 Just a few days after reporting that Colorado has formally moved to prevent the use of "alternative business structures" in the practice of law, the ABA has published an article suggesting that there is a "quiet restructuring of legal services" through the use of those types of structures and management organizations.  The article starts:  

The legal profession is in the middle of a quiet but very impactful structural shift. In Arizona, alternative business structures have created a regulated pathway for multidisciplinary ownership and innovation. In the rest of the country, management services organizations have emerged as an accepted preferred model for delivering operational sophistication while staying within the boundaries of ABA Model Rule 5.4.

The author argues that traditional law firm structures make long term investment difficult and that Arizona’s ABS framework offers a solution by providing a regulated path for multidisciplinary ownership.  However, he states that in the rest of the country, the management services organizations law firm model has become the preferred alternative. He argues that when structured properly, an MSO does not violate Rule 5.4 because the law firm remains a separate legal entity owned entirely by lawyers, who maintain full independence of legal judgment

And then, there are the states that still strictly enforce bans on sharing fees with non-lawyers or entities, which I believe is still the majority.

I have not done a state by state survey to know which side of the argument is winning but it is obvious that the debate continues.  And, as I have reported elsewhere repeatedly, the debate also continues as to whether the use of alternative structures has created more access to legal services.  Some studies suggest that is not the case, even though that has always been one of the claims of those who support alternative business structures.   

For all my posts on alternative business structures go here.

Legal groups file new ethics complaint against Pam Bondi

About a week and a half ago, it was reported that a coalition of legal groups, judges and attorneys on Wednesday refiled a formal ethics complaint against former Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing her of “serious professional misconduct” in her leadership of the Justice Department and handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.  Courthouse News Service has the story here.  Above the Law has more here.

The story says "refiled" because a complaint was filed last year (around June), while she was still in office. (See here). That complaint was rejected by the state of Florida on the basis that the state would not prosecute her while she held her office as Attorney General.  Well, now that she is no longer serving in that capacity, it is time for Florida to decide whether to take on the complaint.  I doubt they will, but I hope I am wrong.  

Article: Why Attorneys Can Ethically Use General-Purpose GenAI for Client Matters Without Redacting Everything

 Carolyn Elefant's new article Why Attorneys Can Ethically Use General-Purpose GenAI for Client Matters Without Redacting Everything is available here.

Colorado moves to ban fee sharing with nonlawyers and alternative business structures

 As you probably know, the rules of professional conduct in most states ban lawyers from sharing fees with non-lawyers and also ban non-lawyers from owning an interest in law firms.  However, in recent years, there has been a strong trend against these types of rules and some states and Puerto Rico have amended them or abandoned them entirely, with others seriously considering doing so too.

I thought this trend was decidedly (although slowly) moving in the direction of recognizing alternative business structures in most states.  But maybe I was wrong.  After some conflicting reports on whether the experiments in Arizona and Utah turned out to be a positive move (see here and here), maybe the trend has slowed down.  And now comes news that in Colorado, the idea appears to have been rejected outright.

The ABA Journal is reporting that Colorado has passed a bill that bans fee sharing with nonlawyers. Under the bill, known as the Colorado Legal Practice Integrity and Fee-Sharing Prohibition Act, lawyers and law firms in the state are prohibited from sharing legal fees or revenues with nonlawyers or alternative business structures, which are legal entities that are controlled or managed by nonlawyers.

The bill is based on the proposition that “[f]inancial arrangements that provide nonlawyers with an economic interest in law firms and their fees, revenues or case outcomes, however structured, threaten a lawyer’s duties of loyalty to their client, confidentiality and professional independence.”  This proposition is, as you would expect, challenged by those who support changing the system to allow alternative business structures.

It will be interesting to see if the bill is signed into law and, more importantly, whether it will influence the discussion of the issue in other jurisdictions.

For all my posts on issues related to alternative business structures, go here and scroll down.

New ABA Formal Opinion on agreements that allow a lawyer to withdraw when a client fails to fulfill an obligation

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 523 titled "Engagement Agreements Allowing a Lawyer to Withdraw When the Client Fails Substantially to Fulfill an Obligation Regarding the Lawyer’s Services."  Its summary reads as follows:

Rule 1.16(b)(5) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits a lawyer to withdraw from a representation, or to seek the tribunal’s permission to do so, when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” This provision is ordinarily invoked when a client fails to fulfill an obligation regarding payment of legal fees and expenses. The engagement agreement may memorialize additional obligations of the client, both obligations that are otherwise implicit such as the client’s truthful cooperation with the representation, and further obligations insofar as they are not forbidden by the Rules, other law (including court rules), or public policy. A client’s persistent failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services, including obligations unrelated to payment of fees and expenses, may constitute a basis for withdrawal if the procedural requirements of Rule 1.16(b)(5) are met. Further, the lawyer’s engagement agreement may put the client on notice of permissible grounds for withdrawal under Rule 1.16(a) and (b), including the client’s failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services. However, the engagement agreement may not expand on the grounds for withdrawal set forth in Rule 1.16 or purport to alter or amend the grounds for withdrawal or the process for withdrawal required by the Rule.

You can read the opinion here. 

DOJ Sues D.C. Bar For Trying to Hold Trump Lawyers To Ethical Rules

Back in March I reported that the Department of Justice proposed a new federal regulation to grant then Attorney General Pam Bondi the right to unilaterally interfere with state bar ethics investigations into current and former government lawyers.  See here.  Whether the proposal will have be adopted or whether it will have any real effect remains to be seen but that has not stopped the fearless leaders at the DOJ who apparently have decided to step it up a notch. 

A few days ago it was reported that the DOJ has actually filed a complaint against the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, and the D.C. Court of Appeals — essentially any entity that might be in a position to take a lawyer’s license away — on the theory that the bar disciplinary process violates the Supremacy Clause and Article II when applied to former DOJ attorneys (even thought there is applicable law that explicitly recognizes that local bar authorities have jurisdiction over government lawyers committing misconduct in their jurisdictions.)

For coverage of this latest development check out Above the Law, The Hill and The ABA Journal.

DC Circuit signals Trump’s law firm sanctions likely unlawful

 Last Thursday, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit heard argument in Perkins Coie v. DOJ, the case in which a few law firms that were targeted by Trump because the firms hired people or represented clients the president does not like.  The firms challenged the executive orders which Trump signed to strip lawyers of security clearances, eliminate their access to government contracts and employment, and which sought to prevent the firms’ lawyers from having access federal buildings. All of the law firms who chose to challenge the orders have won their challenges so far.  In fact, the lower courts didn’t simply enjoin the orders but also restored yanked clearances. 

Observers of the oral argument have suggested that the panel agreed with the law firms in that the executive orders are unconstitutional. See, coverage in Courthouse News Service.  Even the right wing Washington Legal Foundation agrees that they are.  See here.  See also coverage in The Hill.

Comment on the effect of AI on the billable hour model

Above the Law has published a comment on how AI affects the billable hour model, here.

Federal judge imposes what may be the most expensive sanction for hallucinations yet

 Last month I reported on a case that was reported as imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases created by AI was 768.  Today the count is 901.  Go here for the full list.

I have not read every case on the list nor have I followed it closely, but if the case I reported in March was really significant because the court imposed $15,000 in sanctions to the lawyers involved, you should know that a federal judge has raised the stakes considerably.

Today, the ABA Journal is reporting on a case in which the judge imposed $110,000 in fines and attorney fees against two lawyers who filed documents filled with fake cases and fabricated citations.

That may be the larges sanctions imposed for improper use of AI yet.  

The ABA Journal has the story here.

John Eastman disbarred in California for role in Trump's attempt to subvert the 2020 election

 Last week, after a three-year disciplinary process, the California Supreme Court finally officially disbarred John Eastman for his role in the attempt to help Donald Trump subvert the 2020 election.  

Eastman was also suspended in Washington, D.C. pending the decision of the case, so it is likely that he will be disbarred reciprocally there soon.

Politico has more on the story here and Above the Law has a good comment here.

UPDATE 4-18-26:  The ABA Journal reports "California Supreme Court disbars attorney John Eastman for 'egregious and deceitful conduct'"

ABA releases new Formal Ethics Opinion on a lawyer's obligation to disclose information about a judge's disqualification

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 522 - Lawyer’s Obligation to Disclose Information About Grounds for a Judge’s Disqualification. Its abstract reads as follows: 

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. When a lawyer in a proceeding possesses information that the lawyer knows is reasonably likely to give rise to a judicial disqualification obligation, Rule 8.4(d) requires the lawyer, as an officer of the court, to disclose that information to the tribunal. When the lawyer possesses the information only because it is “information relating to the representation of a client,” then the lawyer’s disclosure obligation is subject to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6.

For now (before it is archived), you can read the opinion here. 

Sixth Circuit imposes significant sanctions for citing non-existent cases

Last January I reported on a case imposing significant sanctions for citing hallucinated cases and stated that the running count of cases involving courts complaining about hallucinated cases (created by AI) was 527.  Two months later, the number is now 768 (and by the time you read this, it may be higher.)  Go here for the full list.

I am writing about this again today because LawSites is reporting (here) that "[i]n what may be one of the most significant appellate sanctions rulings yet involving fabricated case citations, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has imposed substantial penalties on two Tennessee attorneys for filing briefs containing more than two dozen fake or misrepresented citations."  

The lawyers involved were ordered to pay $15,000 each in fines and to jointly pay for their opponents' full attorney fees on appeal plus and amount equal to double their costs.