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. 

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. 

ABA Publishes a new Ethics Opinion

The ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility just published a new Formal Ethics Opinion (No. 520) on a lawyer’s obligation to convey information to a former client or successor counsel.  The abstract reads as follows: 

Model Rule 1.16(d) requires a lawyer to respond to requests for information from former clients or successor counsel in certain limited circumstances when doing so is necessary to protect client interests and reasonably practicable. Ordinarily, such a request will require a response when the requested information was acquired by the lawyer during the course of the representation, is unavailable from other sources, and is important to the client’s interests in the matter in which the lawyer formerly represented the client. Rule 1.16(d) does not require a lawyer to take steps to acquire new information, generate written responses, or provide further legal services to the client in response to a request for information.

New ABA Formal Ethics Opinion on confidentiality when withdrawing from representation

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 519 - Disclosure of Information Relating to the Representation in a Motion to Withdraw From a Representation.  The abstract reads as follows:

When moving to withdraw from a representation, a lawyer’s disclosure to the tribunal is limited by the duty of confidentiality established by Rule 1.6(a) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless an explicit exception to the duty of confidentiality applies or the client provides informed consent, the lawyer may not reveal “information relating to the representation” in support of a withdrawal motion. Disclosure of information relating to the representation is not “impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation” under Rule 1.6(a) or otherwise impliedly authorized even when Rule 1.16(a) requires the lawyer to seek to withdraw. If disclosure is permitted by an exception to the duty of confidentiality, such as when disclosure is required by a court order, it must be strictly limited to the extent reasonably necessary and, whenever possible, made through measures that protect confidentiality such as by making submissions in camera or under seal.

You can access the text of the opinion here. 

ABA Committee releases new Formal Opinion on discrimination in the jury selection process

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued  a new Formal Opinion: ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 517 - Discrimination in the Jury Selection Process.  

If you recall, paragraph [5] of the comment to Rule 8.4 states that "[a] trial judge’s finding that peremptory challenges were exercised on a discriminatory basis does not alone establish a violation of paragraph (g)."  For this reason, the opinion attempts to address the following questions: 

Rule 8.4(g) presents two principal questions regarding discriminatory challenges. First, in light of Comment [5], when does a lawyer’s unlawful exercise of peremptory challenges on a discriminatory basis violate Rule 8.4(g)? Second, given the statement that lawyers may engage in legitimate advocacy consistent with the Model Rules, does a lawyer violate Rule 8.4(g) by exercising peremptory challenges on discriminatory bases where not forbidden by other law? 

The opinion then proceeds to address the questions and concludes that Rule 8.4(g) does NOT prohibit a lawyer’s discriminatory but lawful exercises of peremptory challenges, but also that 

A lawyer who knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer’s exercise of peremptory challenges constitutes unlawful discrimination in the jury selection process violates Model Rule 8.4(g). It is not “legitimate advocacy” within the meaning of Model Rule 8.4(g) for a lawyer to carry out a trial strategy that would result in unlawful juror discrimination. A lawyer may not follow a client’s directive or accept a jury consultant’s advice or AI software’s guidance to exercise peremptory challenges if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the conduct will constitute unlawful juror discrimination. 

You can read the full opinion here. 

Comment on recent ABA Opinion on generative AI

 Back in July I posted that the ABA had recently issued an ethics opinion on generative Ai and the practice of law. I am writing about it again today to let you know that just recently The Law for Lawyers Today published a comment on the opinion here.

ABA issues new opinion on duty to investigate circumstances related to the representation

 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.

Breaking Down the ABA’s Guidance on Using Generative AI in Legal Practice

A recent article breaking Down the ABA’s guidance on using generative AI in legal practice is available here.

ABA issues Formal Opinion on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools -- UPDATED

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:

LawSites

Ethical Grounds

New Legal Ethics Opinion Cautions Lawyers: You ‘Must Be Proficient’ In the Use of Generative AI

 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.

Generative AI and the practice of law

As reported by Ethical Grounds, last month, the D.C. Bar issued Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys’ Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters, which discusses many different issues and the Rules of Professional Conduct most likely implicated by a legal professional’s use of generative AI (GAI).  You can read the opinion here.

Based on this opinion, Michael Kennedy (of Ethical Grounds), has posted two new comments on issues related to generative AI and the practice of law.  In the first one, available here, he discusses why it is not necessary to amend or change current rules of professional conduct in response to the effects of generative AI in the practice of law.  In the second one, available here, he begins to address issues related to the professional duties most likely to be implicated by a legal professional’s use of GAI by discussing the duty of confidentiality.  I expect he will address other duties in future posts, so stay tuned.  

ABA Issues Formal Opinion cautioning lawyers to be careful not to disclose confidential information when talking about the representation of clients

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.

ABA publishes new Formal Ethics Opinion on conflicts of interest because of duties owed to prospective clients under Model Rule 1.18

 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.

New ABA Formal Opinion on confidential government information

 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.

Florida Bar issues opinion on using generative AI technology

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.

Legal Ethics Year in Review Program

 Happy New Year, everyone!  And, as you know, this is the time of the year when we see "top ten lists" and "year in review" programs and podcasts.  

One of my favorites is the Legal Ethics Year in Review Program put together by Lucian Pera (of Adams & Reese LLC) and Trisha Rich (of Holland & Knight LLC).  They run down their top ten stories (or topics/themes) of the year and very quickly summarize the issues and provide helpful references and materials.  Their programs are always both informative and entertaining and this year's was no exception.  I actually wish they would make them a little bit longer so there could be more of a discussion at the end.  

In any case, if you missed it, go watch the program by clicking here, and put yourself on their mailing list so you can attend next year's program when it is offered live.

Proposed Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 24-1 provides guidance regarding lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence

 Proposed Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 24-1 provides guidance regarding lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence.  Lawyer Ethics Alert Blogs has the story (and the opinion) here.

Arizona Ethics Opinion concludes lawyers can disclose confidential information when replying to negative online reviews

Long time readers of this blog might remember a few posts on whether an attorney can reply to negative online reviews.  All sources I have seen agree that lawyers can respond to negative reviews but that they can not disclose confidential information about a client in the process.  (Go here for a recent post which includes links to the older ones.  Here is link to an ABA Opinion.)

I am writing about this today again because I just found out that at the end of last year, the Supreme Court of Arizona Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee issued an ethics opinion that contradicts what all those sources have opined on the issue.

This new opinion concludes that 

In the context of an unfavorable online comment or review by a former client, informed consent is unlikely, meaning that disclosure of confidential information will be improper unless permitted by the only exception potentially applicable to this scenario, which is found under Rule 1.6(d)(4). Under Rule 1.6(d)(4), a lawyer may reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary "to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client." Comment 12 to Rule 1.6 further provides that, where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in a former client's conduct or other misconduct involving representation of the former client, the lawyer may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense. Comment 12 also states that the lawyer's right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been made; section (d)(4) does not require the lawyer to wait for an action that charges such complicity to commence. Rather, the defense may be established by responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion.

The question thus becomes whether negative online comments establish a "controversy," and, if so, whether disclosure of confidential information can ever be considered reasonably necessary to establish a defense. Negative online comments do establish a controversy between a lawyer and client the informality of an online critique is not relevant. Furthermore, disclosure of confidential information may be considered reasonably necessary to establish a defense. A client may not use confidentiality as both a sword and a shield in a formal legal or disciplinary proceeding. Similarly, the client should not be able to make public accusation of serious misconduct against their former lawyer and then invoke the lawyer's duty of confidentiality to prevent the lawyer from making an effective response or to punish the lawyer for having done so. An individual who elects to try their former lawyer in the court of public opinion rather than before a tribunal and makes serious accusations that put confidential information at issue assumes the risk that such information will be disclosed in the lawyer's response. Thus, untrue accusations of misconduct should be countered.

Go here and scroll down to read Supreme Court of Arizona Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee Ethics Opinion File No. EO-19-0010 (December, 2022).

Thank you to Victor Salas for sending me a copy of the opinion!

New ABA Formal Opinion on witness preparation -- UPDATED

About two weeks ago, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued a new Formal Ethics Opinion (No. 508) on the ethics of witness preparation.  Its abstract reads: 

A lawyer’s role in preparing a witness to testify and providing testimonial guidance is not only an accepted professional function; it is considered an essential tactical component of a lawyer’s advocacy in a matter in which a client or witness will provide testimony. Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct governing the client-lawyer relationship and a lawyer’s duties as an advisor, the failure adequately to prepare a witness would in many situations be classified as an ethical violation. But, in some witness-preparation situations, a lawyer clearly steps over the line of what is ethically permissible. Counseling a witness to give false testimony or assisting a witness in offering false testimony, for example, is a violation of at least Model Rule 3.4(b). The task of delineating what is necessary and proper and what is ethically prohibited during witness preparation has become more urgent with the advent of commonly used remote technologies, some of which can be used to surreptitiously “coach” witnesses in new and ethically problematic ways.

You can read the full opinion here. You can read more about it over at Ethical Grounds.

UPDATE 9-17-23:   Lawyer Ethics Alert Blog has a comment on the Opinion here.

UPDATE 10-5-23:  The Law for Lawyers Today has a comment here.

UPDATE 11-4-23:  The Louisiana Legal Ethics Blog has a comment here.

ABA Formal Ethics Opinion on "non-lawyer" assistants -- UPDATED

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued a Formal Ethics Opinion (No. 506) on a lawyer's responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants.  You can read it here. The abstract reads as follows:

A lawyer may train and supervise a nonlawyer to assist with prospective client intake tasks including obtaining initial information about the matter, performing an initial conflict check, determining whether the assistance sought is in an area of law germane to the lawyer’s practice, assisting with answering general questions about the fee agreement or process of representation, and obtaining the prospective client’s signature on the fee agreement provided that the prospective client always is offered an opportunity to communicate with the lawyer including to discuss the fee agreement and scope of representation. Because Model Rule 5.5 prohibits lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, whether a nonlawyer may answer a prospective client’s specific question depends on the question presented. If the prospective client asks about what legal services the client should obtain from the lawyer, wants to negotiate the fees or expenses, or asks for interpretation of the engagement agreement, the lawyer is required to respond to ensure that the non-lawyer does not engage in the unauthorized practice of law and that accurate information is provided to the prospective client so that the prospective client can make an informed decision about whether to enter into the representation.

UPDATE 6-18-23:  2Civility has analysis of the opinion here.