Professional Responsibility Committee of the California Bar issues opinion on whether a blog should be subject to advertising rules

The Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility of the State Bar of California recently issued an advisory opinion on whether “blogging” by an attorney is, or should be, subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and related provisions of the State Bar Act regulating attorney advertising.  The answer, summarized below, is pretty straight forward and are pretty much what I suggested would be the logical answer to the question when I first blogged about it a few years ago (here).

The opinion is available here and the summary is as follows:

1. Blogging by an attorney is subject to the requirements and restrictions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act relating to lawyer advertising if the blog expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment directly through words of invitation or offer to provide legal services , or implicitly through its description of the type and character of legal services offered by the attorney, detailed descriptions of case results, or both.

2. A blog that is a part of an attorney’s or law firm’s professional website will be subject to the rules regulating attorney advertising to the same extent as the website of which it is a part.

3. A stand-alone blog by an attorney that does not relate to the practice of law or [that] otherwise express[es] the attorney’s availability for professional employment will not become subject to the rules regulating attorney advertising simply [even if] the blog contains a link to the attorney or law firm’s professional website.

Nevada may become the first jurisdiction to adopt controversial ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

Back in January I wrote a long post on a proposal to amend Model Rule 8.4 to make it a sanctionable offense to engage in harassment or discrimination.  I thought that the original proposal was problematic for a number of reasons.  Some of the problems I thought of originally were addressed (and fixed) in subsequent versions of the proposal, but I still have some concerns. Go here for some of my comments. 

The ABA eventually adopted the amendment and enacted a Model Rule 8.4(g).  Despite strong support for it within the ABA, not everyone agreed it was a good idea.  See here for example.  The Texas Attorney General issued an opinion concluding it is unconstitutional.  So did the Montana legislature in a resolution.  Pennsylvania rejected it and instead adopted the approach used in Illinois, which is different from the one suggested by the ABA.  Illinois rejected adopting the new rule too.  So did the Professional Responsibility Committee of the South Carolina Bar.

So far, no jurisdiction has adopted the Model Rule.  It is still too early to say that it has been a failure but at least some within the ABA are frustrated the reaction has not been more positive.

Now comes news that Nevada may become the first state to adopt the new rule, although according to this commentator, the state is being misled by the rules proponents.

Virginia Supreme Court makes revisions to lawyer advertising rules which streamline the rules and reduce their number

Back in May I reported that the Virginia Supreme Court announced it was going to adopt new lawyer advertising rules.  See here.  The new rules are now in place.  You can find a copy of the new rules here.

Illinois decision provides good test for discussion of Constitutionality of new ABA Rule 8.4(g) -- UPDATED

As I am sure you know by now, the ABA recently approved an amendment to Model Rule 8.4 to make it misconduct to use discriminatory or biased speech.  The amendment is now Model Rule 8.4(g) which you can find here.  Back in January I wrote a long comment on the original proposal, which was changed before it was approved last month.  The approved version improved some of the issues I had originally objected to, but I still have reservations about the approved language. My main concern is that the language seems to punish protected, even if offensive speech.  You can read my most recent comments on it here and here. 

In one of my comments I posed asked rhetorically whether the new rule could survive a Constitutional attack.  So to pursue the question with some real facts, here is a good example.

The Legal Profession blog is reporting that a recent Illinois Hearing Board report recommended sanctions on an attorney who, among other things, “used demeaning and insulting language” toward the father of a client.  The father, by the way, was supposed to pay for the client’s representation which courts in Illinois have found makes him a client too.  The report lists some of the statements in question as follows: 

You are a piece of garbage. All black people are alike. You're slovenly, ignorant. [...]

I'm sick of you, you piece of shit.

I don't know who's the biggest bitch. You or [___]. I'm going to lock you up.

Low class n#!*s. I'm going to have you all locked up. [...]

You are such a pussy. ...

You're ugly, low class, ignorant. I'll finish with you when he gets off. You're demeaning your son.

Help your son. Pay. Stop delaying case.

Given those statements, the attorney was charged with a violation of Illinois Rule 4.4, which states that “[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.”

Personally, I don’t think that Rule 4.4 was meant to address this type of conduct; it is not meant to address the use of offensive speech directed at client.  It seems to me a better rule to use in a case like this would be the section of Illinois Rule 8.4(d) that talks about engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

However, since 8.4 is also not squarely on point, it can be argued that the fact that the lawyer was charged under 4.4 rather than under another rule that may be more “on point” shows the need to adopt a new rule that would address this type of conduct. 

But what if that rule is adopted?  What if Illinois had adopted the new Model Rule 8.4(g)?  It seems to me this would be a good case to have a court decide the issue I have been writing about all along.  The conduct is deplorable and the speech is offensive; but the First Amendment protects against the state imposing sanctions on speech merely because some might find it offensive.

In the end, I think the issue comes down to deciding whether the state can support the argument that regulating offensive speech by lawyers outweighs the lawyer’s constitutional right to utter offensive statements.  If the answer is yes, the facts of this case are a good example to use in support of the adopting the new rule.  If the answer is no, then the facts of the case can be used as an example of the consequences of the Constitutional protection of what some might believe to be offensive speech. 

UPDATE 6/10/17: The Illinois Review Board has recommended a 60 day suspension. The Legal Profession blog has an update here. 

Magistrate imposes sanctions on lawyer for making too many improper objections during deposition -- UPDATED

I have often complained that judges don't do enough to discourage misconduct by lawyers during discovery in civil trials, which I think is very important because most civil trials settle on the basis of what happens during discovery. 

For this reason, I was glad to read a story in the ABA Journal about a recent case in which a federal magistrate imposed sanctions on New York City because of the conduct of one of its lawyers during a deposition.  The lawyer reportedly made more than 600 improper objections which lengthened the deposition, may have influenced the answers of the witness and prevented the witness from answering questions even though there was no basis to do so.  The lawyer's conduct was so improper that the lawyer taking the deposition had to interrupt the deposition in order to call the judge’s chambers to seek guidance.

The conduct was clearly improper, and I am glad the magistrate imposed sanctions.  I wish, however, that the sanctions could have been harsher.   Unfortunately, given the recent US Supreme Court decision in Goodyear v Haeger, the power to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct is now more limited.  I did not like the result in that case, which I think eliminates one of the few ways in which courts can try control discovery abuse, but that is a different and longer topic.

UPDATE 6/4/17:  The Law for Lawyers Today has a comment here.

New ABA Ethics Opinion on duties related to the use of modern technology -- UPDATED

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently issued Formal Ethics Opinion 477, which updates Formal Ethics Opinion 99-413, and which addresses different duties related to the use of modern technology.

The opinion concludes that "[a] lawyer generally may transmit information relating to the representation of a client over the internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct where the lawyer has undertaken reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access. However, a lawyer may be required to take special security precautions to protect against the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information when required by an agreement with the client or by law, or when the nature of the information requires a higher degree of security."

This does not strike me as new or surprising.  It essentially reinforces a duty already in place in Rule 1.6(c) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct which states that a lawyer "shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client."

What is new (but I don't know if surprising) is that the committee declined to draw a bright line as to when encryption or other security measures would be required. Instead, the committee recommended that lawyers undergo a “fact-based analysis” that includes evaluating factors such as the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients.  Thus, some cases may require lawyers to use encryption, while others might not.  

For a good explanation of the opinion go here, and here.

UPDATE 5/23/17:   Formal Opinion 477 has been revised to clarify that the opinion does not alter Formal Ethics Opinion 11-459 and to note that the change in Model Rule 1.6(c) supported 11-459. There is no substantive change in the opinion. The revised opinion can be found here.  For a good analysis of the opinion go here.

Florida Supreme Court adopts new rules addressing collaborative law practice

The Florida Supreme Court has adopted new rules addressing collaborative family law practice.  You can read the details here.

North Carolina is considering amending its rules to make it easier for lawyers to participate in Avvo Legal Services

Long time readers of this blog know that I have been following and writing about the debates related to Avvo Legal Services for some time now.  For an article on my position on the subject go here. 

As you may remember Avvo has attempted to argue that lawyers should not worry about participating in Avvo Legal Services because doing so does not violate rules of professional conduct, or, if it does, because the rules are unconstitutional.  Yet, all the opinions issued so far have concluded that Avvo is wrong.  And that is because under the current regulatory scheme in pretty much all states, Avvo’s arguments are weak. 

Having said that, however, note that the key to the previous statement is “under the current regulatory scheme.”  Saying that participating in Avvo Legal Services would violate the rules is not the end of the debate.  The more interesting question is whether the rules should be changed to accommodate what Avvo wants to do.

Today’s update on this story is that instead of continuing to argue that the rules don't apply or that they should be ignored, Avvo apparently has been trying to convince the North Carolina regulators to change the rules.  As a result, North Carolina may soon become the first state to change the regulatory approach in order to formally make it acceptable for lawyers to participate in services like Avvo Legal Services.  (Interestingly, as you might remember, North Carolina also amended its definition of the “practice of law” as part of an agreement with LegalZoom.)

According to documents I have reviewed, as a result of meetings between Avvo and a committee of the State Bar Association, the committee has drafted a proposal to amend several rules of professional conduct, including Rule 5.4, which bans splitting fees with non-lawyers.  The proposal would add a new paragraph to the rule to state that “a lawyer may pay a portion of a legal fee to a credit card processor, group advertising provider or online platform for identifying and hiring a lawyer if the amount paid is a reasonable charge for administrative or marketing services and there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship.”

Adoption of this new rule would be good news for Avvo, but would not necessarily clear the way entirely.  One point of contention within the committee was whether Avvo’s rating system operates as a recommendation to consumers which would result in a violation of rule 7.1 if lawyers were to pay Avvo for recommending them, particularly since Avvo does not disclose the basis of the rating system.  Within the committee, this created a concern over whether Avvo is providing recommendations that are not based on legitimate criteria because the rating system is not transparent since it does not provide information on the factors used to create the rating.

To address this concern, there is now a proposal to add a new paragraph to the comment of Rule 7.1 to state (in part) that “A lawyer may participate in online directories and other rating systems that allow the lawyer to “claim” the lawyer’s profile and to provide information for inclusion in the profile or to be used to rate the lawyer.  The information provided by the lawyer must be truthful and not misleading.  No money may be paid by the lawyer for a rating and, before voluntarily providing information to an online rating system, the lawyer must determine that the rating system uses objective standards that are verifiable and would be recognized by a reasonable lawyer as establishing a legitimate basis for evaluating the lawyer’s services. . . .”

If it is true that Avvo does not disclose the basis of its ratings, I am not clear how a lawyer can meet these requirements. 

Finally, as one would expect, another concern is whether allowing Avvo to retain the consumer’s payment until the lawyer finishes providing the legal services constitutes a violation of the lawyer’s duty to safeguard client’s funds in a trust account and to contribute the interest generated by that account to the state’s IOLTA program.

To address this concern, Avvo has suggested an amendment to the comment of the rule on safeguarding property, but it is not clear that the committee of the State Bar has adopted it.  Avvo’s proposal is to add a new paragraph to the comment to read: “Client or third person funds sometimes pass through, or are originated by, intermediaries before reaching the lawyer’s account.  Such intermediaries have traditionally included banks, credit card processors, or litigation funding entities, and have been chosen unilaterally by the client.  However, newer intermediaries include attorney marketing programs, chosen by the attorney, that collect payments directly from clients and pass them through to the attorney.  Attorneys have an affirmative obligation to ensure that such intermediaries 1) adequately protect client funds and 2) do not retain client funds for a period [of time] that materially impacts i) the client’s opportunity to earn interest on the funds, or ii) the availability of interest earnings for [state legal services organization that receives IOLTA interest, if applicable].  Absent other indicia of fraud (such as the use of non-industry standard methods for collecting credit card information), an attorney’s diligence obligation will be deemed met with respect to intermediaries that collect client funds using credit or debit cards and remit such funds to attorney accounts within [ ] days.”

As of now, I don’t know if the State Bar proposal will include this suggested language.  It is not included in the copy I have, but there may be more documents I have not seen yet.  Clearly, Avvo's goal is to exempt lawyers from having to deposit client money in a trust account, at least for some, as of yet not determined, period of time.  For those who have argued the rules about trust accounts should be abandoned or relaxed, this would not be a problem.  But for those who think they need to be followed strictly in order to protect clients, this proposal might be a problem.  The North Carolina rules regarding trust accounts can be found here.

The documents I have seen about these proposals are all from within the last three months, but I do not know what is the current status of the proposals.  It remains to be seen if they will be adopted by the State Bar Ethics Committee.

Stay tuned.

Florida Supreme Court dismisses Florida Bar’s petition proposing substantial revisions to lawyer referral service rules

Back in 2015, the Florida Supreme Court rejected amendments to state regulations on referral services and directed the State Bar to instead draft amendments that would “preclude Florida lawyers from accepting referrals from any lawyer referral service that is not owned or operated by a member of the Bar.”  See, In re Amend. to Rule Reg. The Fla. Bar 4-7.22—Lawyer Referral Services, 175 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 2015).

The State Bar went back to work and adopted a new proposal in 2016, but this new proposal was recently rejected again by the Supreme Court because it still allowed attorneys to accept referrals from entities owned and operated by non-lawyers. 

What is interesting about this story is that the new proposal was adopted to make it easy for entities like LegalZoom, RocketLawyer and Avvo to participate in the state’s legal market.  To this end, under the new proposed amendments any private entities that connect consumers looking for legal services with lawyers would have been called “qualifying providers” regardless of whether they were “traditional” referral services or a technology-based “lead generator” (like Avvo, RocketLawyer or LegalZoom).

The Court however, rejected the proposal stating that the proposed amendments “do not comply with the Court’s direction concerning lawyer referral services that are not owned or operated by a member of the Bar” and it objected that the proposed amendments “seek to expand the scope of the rule to include “matching services” and other similar services not currently regulated by the Bar.”  This last reference, obviously, is directed at services like RocketLawyer, Avvo and LegalZoom.

Having said all that, however, the debate is not over.  The Court again sent the issue back to the State Bar stating that “the Bar’s petition in this case is . . . dismissed without prejudice to allow the members of this Court to engage in informed discussions with the Bar and those who are in favor or against the proposed regulation of matching and other similar services. The Court lacks sufficient background information on such services and their regulation at this time.”

In other words, it is still possible that the Court will adopt the proposed amendments; it just won’t do it at this time.

The Court’s order is officially called In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar-Subchapter 4-7 and you can read it here.

Thanks to Lawyer Ethics Alerts Blog for the update.

NPR article on one example of prosecutorial misconduct

NPR has published an interesting short article chronicling a criminal case recently dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct.  The title says it all:  "'This Was A Colossal Screw-Up': A Close Look At A Case Dismissed For Misconduct."

Georgia Supeme Court finds duty to disclose exculpatory evidence does not necessarily require disclosure before trial

The Georgia Supreme Court recently absolved a state prosecutor of ethics charges arising from an alleged violation of the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence because, according to the court, the “record fail[ed] to show any clear-cut violation of Brady or Rule 3.8 (d), and for that reason, we conclude that no discipline at all is warranted.”

Given that the court concludes the record shows "clearly and convincingly" that the prosecutor failed to disclose evidence to the defense, I wonder what the court means by a “clear cut violation.”  Does that mean that the record showed a violation but that it was an “acceptable violation,” a “so-so violation”...?  Hm; don’t know, but I will let that slide.

There are two more interesting things to point out here.  The first one if that the court does not make any distinction between the obligation imposed by the Constitutional standard in Brady and the regulatory standard in the Rules of Professional Conduct.  As you probably know, some jurisdictions consider the Rules to impose a broader duty.

The second interesting point is the reason the court did not find a violation of the prosecutor’s duty to disclose.  The court found that even though the record “clearly and convincingly shows that [the prosecutor] failed to disclose to defense counsel [the material evidence] before trial . . . Brady does not always require pretrial disclosure of exculpatory evidence . . .”  Citing several older Georgia cases, the court holds that a prosecutor can withhold exculpatory evidence from the defendant until the trial itself and that the duty would be satisfied even if the disclosure is made at the last minute if defense counsel has a chance to cross examine the witness who offers the evidence.  According to this line of cases “[w]hether a disclosure at trial is timely enough to satisfy Brady depends on the extent to which the delay in disclosing the exculpatory evidence deprived the defense of a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the pertinent witness at trial, whether earlier disclosure would have benefited the defense, and whether the delay deprived the accused of a fair trial or materially prejudiced his defense.”

I find it difficult to think that a prosecutor can knowingly delay disclosing information there is a duty to disclose and that it would be acceptable to surprise the defense in the middle of trial.  (And, even if the information is not withheld "knowingly," as the court states in the case, Brady applies irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor.)  I find the last quote of the court (above) to be of little comfort.  However, I am not an expert on criminal procedure or the Brady doctrine, which is maybe why I find this result surprising.  I just don’t know if this approach is common among jurisdictions.  Do you?  Let me know.


The Legal Profession blog has more information here.

Virginia to amend rules regarding advertising

The Virginia Supreme Court has announced that it will adopt new lawyer advertising rules effective July 1, 2017.  Here is the announcement and the text of the new rules.  The new rules will largely follow the suggestions of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers which, for some time now, has been advocating the simplification of advertising rules. Go here for a post on the APRL's report on the subject and here for a comment on it.

I don't have a problem with an effort to simplify the rules on advertising.  But there is an inherent problem in any rule that allows for discipline to be imposed based on a finding that information is "misleading."  The word misleading is so vague it leaves too much up to interpretation. Yet, the word is part of the Constitutional analysis developed by the Supreme Court, so we have learned to tolerate it, I guess.

For a comment on the new rules in Virginia go here.

2 Civility has a comment with some links here.

UPDATE 5/14/17:  The Law for Lawyers Today blog has a comment here.

Hot potato doctrine applied in Mississippi

The Law for Lawyers Today blog is reporting on a recent case applying the "hot potato doctrine" in Mississippi.  You can read the story here.  The case does not seem to add much to what we already know about the doctrine other than the fact that the case did not quite involve the typical scenario in which the doctrine applies.

Typically the hot potato doctrine applies when a lawyer drops a current client in order to take on a new client.  In the Mississippi case, the lawyer took on the new client and then dropped the current client.   Thus, in this case what the lawyer did was enter into a concurrent conflict for a short period of time and then tried to resolve it by dropping one of the two concurrent clients.  In other words, the doctrine is usually applied when a lawyer drops a client in order to avoid entering into a conflict, while here the lawyer dropped a client in order to remedy a conflict he was in already.

My most recent article is now available

My article Justice Gap vs. Core Values: The Common Themes in the Innovation Debate was recently published by the Journal of the Legal Profession.  You can find it at 41 J. of the Legal Profession 1 (2016).

Amendments to Illinois CLE requirements

Earlier today, the Illinois Supreme Court amended the Illinois rule that imposes a minimum number of hours of CLE dedicated to Professional Responsibility.  The Rule will still require Illinois lawyers to complete 6 hours of professional responsibility CLE every reporting period, but effective July 1, 2017, of those 6 hours, one hour must be devoted to issues of diversity and inclusion, and one hour must be devoted to mental health and substance abuse.  

You can read the Court’s press release here and the revised Rule here. The Commission on Professionalism has also answered some FAQs for both attorneys and providers regarding this upcoming requirement, including effective dates, application procedures and eligible courses and activities.

I am not sure I like this rule.  I don't understand why require certain topics and not others.  

Want to help the economy? Don't cut legal aid

Over at Above the Law, David A. Lash, the Managing Counsel for Pro Bono and Public Interest Services at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, has published a short article on the importance of supporting legal aid.  In it, he argues that "allocation of funding for legal aid is a wise investment. In addition to the lives it saves, investment in lawyers for the poor, on a strictly economic, cost-benefit analysis, is an investment worth making. For every dollar spent in support of legal services, an astonishing rate of return results. By any measure, an investment yield of ten-to-one is an investment worth making."

You should read the article here.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejects argument that rules that ban lawyers from raising capital from non lawyers are unconstitutional -- UPDATED

In an important and highly anticipated opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has rejected an argument against the rules of professional conduct which ban lawyers from accepting capital investment from non-laywers.  In this particular case, the specific rules challenged were those of the state of New York, but the reasoning of the court is likely to influence courts in other jurisdicitons.

The ruling is a big blow to those who have been proposing adopting different rules, now in use in the UK and Australia, that would allow lawyers to practice law through "alternative business structures."

On the other hand, the ruling should not be unexpected since the American legal profession has proven to be very reluctant to adopt such a view.  There is a lot of literature about this and it was the hot issue in Professional Responsibility circles for the last couple of years. 

Many thought the ABA was ready to point the way toward change when, in 2014, it created the Commission on the Future of Legal Services and charged it with the task of studying how legal services are delivered in other countries and of recommending innovations that would improve the delivery of, and the public’s access to, legal services in the United States.

Yet, when the Commission presented its final report at the 2016 ABA Annual Meeting it essentially merely encouraged states to “explore how legal services are delivered by entities that employ new technologies and internet-based platforms and then assess the benefits and risks to the public.”  As for the notion of alternative business structures, the Commission’s report’s language was even more tentative, merely stating that “[c]ontinued exploration of alternative business structures will be useful.”  For my comment on the Commission's report go here.  I also have a short article on the debate regarding the future of the profession in 41 Journal of the Legal Profession 1 (2016).

Not content on waiting for the ABA to act, the law firm Jacoby & Meyers, challenged the constitutionality of a collection of New York regulations and laws that together prevent for‐profit law firms from accepting capital investment from non‐lawyers.

In its opinion rejecting the argument, the court explained that the law firm alleged that, if they were allowed to accept outside investment, they would be able to—and would—improve their infrastructure and efficiency and as a result reduce their fees and serve more clients, including clients who might otherwise be unable to afford their services, and that the challenged rules unconstitutionally infringe the firm's rights as lawyers to associate with clients and to access the courts—rights that are grounded, they argue, in the First Amendment.

The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the firm failed to state a claim for violation of any constitutional right and that, even if such rights were to be recognized, the challenged regulations withstand scrutiny because they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed.  You can read the full opinion here.

UPDATE (3-28-17):  The ABA Journal has a short post on the story here.  The NY Personal Injury Blog has a comment here.

Yet another case on whether a fee sharing contract that does not follow the rules can be enforced

A few days ago I posted a note about a recent case on the issue of whether a fee sharing contract that does not strictly meet all the requirements of the rules of professional conduct can be enforced.  Since then, I have learned that the issue is currently under review by the Illinois Supreme Court.  You can listen to the oral argument here.

This is an interesting question and there are a few cases out there on the subject.  I will write a longer comment on the case soon.

Is a fee sharing contract that violates the rules of professional conduct enforceable?

A few years ago I reported on an Illinois case that held that a contract that violated the rules of professional conduct could not be enforceable.  I did not like the decision, and my comments on it are here.

I was reminded of this case because just a couple of days I ago I read that a court in Washington DC recently reached a different result.  The Legal Profession blog has a report here.

ABA is seeking comments on proposal to amend advertising and solitication rules -- UPDATED

Feb. 24, 2017 
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics & Professional Responsibility is currently accepting comments on APRL’s comprehensive proposal which seeks to standardize the rules and focuses regulation on false and misleading communications about legal services. It includes amendments to Model Rules 7.1, Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services; 7.2, Advertising; 7.3, Solicitation of Clients; 7.4, Communications of Fields of Practice and Specialization; and 7.5, Firm Names and Letterheads. The APRL proposal can be found here.  For more information, go to the ABA website here.

UPDATE (3-11-17):  The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism has published an article summarizing the debate on this issue here.

Tennessee adopts duty of competence regarding "technology"; Two recent articles explore the meaning of such a duty

Last week, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an order adopting a number of amendments to the state's rules of professional conduct, including adopting a duty of technology competence.  Twenty seven states have now adopted such a duty.  Law Sites has more details here.

Meanwhile, Law Technology Today has published a two part article on the ethical duty of technology competence.  Part I is here; Part II is here.

New Ohio opinion reminds us of the difference between fees and expenses

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recently issued an advisory opinion on lawyer advertising that emphasizes the need to be clear about the difference between fees and expenses.  The opinion, Advisory Opinion 2017-01, states that lawyers who provide services on a contingent fee basis may not use statements such as “There’s no charge unless we win your case,” or “No fee without recovery,” if the lawyer intends to recover the value of litigation costs and expenses from the client. If a lawyer intends to recover advanced costs and expenses of litigation from the client, a disclaimer is required in the advertisement that explains the client’s obligations for repayment.

California Committee issues final draft of opinion on whether blogs are subject to advertising rules

Legal Ethics in Motion is reporting that the California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has finalized an opinion on whether attorney-authored blogs should be governed by the advertising regulations. The Committee concluded that blogs should be governed as attorney advertising if the blog directly or indirectly expresses the attorney’s availability for professional employment. Thus, a blog that is a part of a firm’s professional website is governed by the advertising guidelines.  “Stand-alone” blogs, or blogs that exists independently of any website an attorney maintains or uses for professional marketing purposes, are also subject to the rules if its content has the same effect as professional blogs.  For more information go here.

New York State Bar Association launches new platform to provide better access to legal representation

The New York State Bar Association, and Legal.io, a developer of referral-network and marketplace platforms for the legal industry, have teamed up to launch a state-of-the-art lawyer referral platform that they say will significantly expand access to legal services in that state.  Interestingly, the developers of this new platform have been reported to describe it "as a more ethical alternative to privately run referral sites such as Avvo..." It will serve New York residents seeking legal help as well as businesses anywhere seeking advice on New York law.  Law Sites has more information here.

Judge finds party waived privilege by placing information on unprotected file sharing website

Earlier this month a federal magistrate judge in Virginia held that placing privileged materials on an unprotected file-sharing site waived a plaintiff's attorney-client privilege and work product protection for those materials.  The case is called Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Holding Funeral Home, Inc.  (also here).  For more details, go to 33 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 76.  The ABA Journal has more information here.

Although some jurisdictions are divided on the issue of whether accidental disclosure automatically waives the privilege, in this case the judge held that the party's actions "were the cyber world equivalent of leaving its claims file on a bench in the public square and telling its counsel where they could find it. It is hard to imagine an act that would be more contrary to protecting the confidentiality of information than to post that information to the world wide web."

Legal ethics professors file disciplinary complaint against Kellyanne Conway - UPDATED

If you saw the original story, scroll down to the end for an update:

I am sure you have heard by now that fifteen professors of legal ethics have sent a letter to the Washington DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel arguing that Kellyanne Conway has incurred in multiple violations of Rule 8.4(c) which recognizes as misconduct engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The complaint has sparked a spirited debate among ethicists and other commentators. It certainly dominated the discussion for most of the day yesterday in the listserv of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers.

Some of the debate has centered on whether the complaint has any basis in the rules [it does]; whether the rule is (or should be considered to be, rather) unconstitutional [it hasn't and there is precedent in many jurisdictions to suggest it wouldn't] and whether the bar has the authority to regulate Conway's conduct since it was not in the practice of law [there is precedent in many jurisdictions to support the view that it does].  Also, a separate question is whether the bar would (or should) spend resources on a complaint based on these types of allegations.

Given that the answer to that last question is that disciplinary agencies usually do not go after lawyers for relatively "minor" and or "private" instances of dishonesty, the issue depends on how important you think Conway's conduct (or alleged misconduct) really is. 

I am sure that if you "google" (a word that is now a verb) the story, you will find a lot of comments.  Here are just a few:

You can read the complaint itself here.

The Washington Post reports the story here.

Above the Law has a short statement that starts "It’s becoming increasingly likely that Kellyanne Conway isn’t a real person so much as a Professional Responsibility issue-spotter made flesh. Between making up terrorist attacks or shilling Ivanka’s crummy baubles or generally degraded political discourse by treating it like a criminal trial, Kellyanne’s had a busy month of run-ins with the generally accepted principles of legal ethics." 

Jonathan Turley argues the complaint is not justified and lacks credibility.

Attorney Paul Alan Levy criticizes the complaint on First Amendment grounds here.

The ABA Journal reports here.

UPDATE (2/27/17):  Professor Steven Lubet, a Legal Ethics professor at Northwestern, criticizes the complaint here. 

Metadata Fair Game in Texas?

As reported in Legal Ethics in Motion, a recent opinion of a Texas bar panel concludes that there is no duty to inform opposing counsel that that opposing counsel sent a document containing metadata.   Moreover, Texas rules do not prohibit searching for and extracting metadata from documents. Of the nineteen jurisdictions that have issued opinions with specific requirements regarding attorneys’ obligation when transmitting or receiving documents containing metadata, Texas is only the third state to opine that its rules do not require notification to the sender of the document.

For a current survey of the state of the law regarding metadata, check out this page in the ABA's website.  For more on the opinion in Texas, go here.

Illinois State Bar Association issues Opinion on using cloud services to store client information

Back in October, the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) issued a Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion stating that a lawyer may use cloud-based services to store client information as long as the lawyer takes reasonable measures to ensure that the client information remains confidential and is protected from breaches.

Carefully choosing an internet cloud space provider is, of course, the first step a lawyer must take in order to comply with the duty.  But, it is important to note that the opinion clearly states that a lawyer does not comply with the obligation to protect the client information by merely selecting (however carefully) a reputable provider.   Thus, the opinion concludes that lawyers must conduct periodic reviews and regularly monitor existing practices to determine if the client information is adequately secured and protected.  This means lawyers can not simply rely on the providers, the lawyers themselves must do something.  And to do something, the lawyers must know what it is they are dealing with.  As I say to my students, lawyers must become personally knowledgeable in computer science of employ someone who is.

States continue to adopt the ABA's suggested language on a duty of competence related to "technology" and this opinion, obviously, follows the trend.  All lawyers are now expected to know about, and understand, the advantages and the risks of using technological advances such as cloud storage.  As reported recently, Florida lawyers are now required to take CLE credits on technology issues.  As technology advances, lawyers are expected to keep up.

You can read the ISBA opinion here.  For information on the current state of the law regarding ethical issues and cloud computing, check out this page in the ABA's website.

Thanks to Ethics in Motion for the update and the link.

Florida adopts duty of technology competence and a requirement regarding technology CLE -- Updated

October 1, 2016. 
Last week the Supreme Court of Florida became the 25th state to adopt the duty of technological competence that the ABA adopted in its recent amendments to the Model Rules.  That's not terribly surprising as the language of the Model Rules usually eventually finds its way into state rules.

However, the Florida Supreme Court did go a bit further.  As explained by the court, the amendment "add[s] language to the comment providing that, in order to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education, including an understanding of the risks and benefits associated with the use of technology.

Go here for more information and a copy of the Court's order.   The ABA Journal online also has the story here.

Interestingly, once it is decided that having knowledge about technology is part of the duty of competence, it follows that it will become an element of the standard of care for malpractice cases. 

UPDATE 2/12/17:  The ABA Journal has a story here.

A recently launched company helps consumers find lawyers based on their win rates

Law Sites has a story and a critique of a recently launched company helps consumers find lawyers based on their win rates.  The ABA Journal also has the story here.  Although I believe the company is genuinely trying to provide access to lawyers for people who don't necessarily know how to find a good lawyer, I think this approach is, to put it mildly, dumb.  Maybe with some major changes they can come up with something that will provide better information for consumers, but the initial idea does not make much sense to me.

The first time the idea was discussed, about a year ago, when a different company proposed the same approach, it was received with negative reviews and the company abandoned the idea.

There are many reasons why using "winning records" as a measure of attorney quality.  First, not all legal services can be measured in terms of wins and losses.  Second, the vast, VAST, majority of cases don't go to trial, so any win-loss records based on trial results only measures a minimally small number of litigated cases.  Third, in those cases that settle, both clients can easily feel they got a "win" when their lawyers exceed their expectations as to the terms of the settlement.  An approach to measuring skill based on winning records does not take into account negotiation skills which, needless to say, are important in litigation. A defendant's lawyer who gets a settlement that saves the client a lot of money may be much more skilled than a plaintiff's lawyer who claims to have "won" the settlement. Simply stated "winning" or "losing" if it can be identified as an actual result to begin with, is not a reliable measure of lawyering skill. Providing consumers with such limited and misleading information may actually be counterproductive. 

Ethical Considerations When Switching from Criminal Defense to the Prosecution

Here is a new short article on ethical considerations when switching from criminal defense to the prosecution published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter.

Ethical Implications of Emergent Technologies

Last week I discussed the comment to Model Rule 1.1 which makes it an element of the duty of competence to understand, and stay current on, issues related to "technology."  As if on cue, yesterday the New York Legal Ethics Reported posted a short article with an update on some of the issues.  So, to help you comply with your duties under MR 1.1, here is the link.  You are welcome!

ABA approves new rule on CLE

Just a few days ago, the ABA House of Delegates adopted a new Model  Rule  for  Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).  You can find the text of the rule and the report in support of the proposal here.

Idaho Supreme Court abandons actual innocence requirement for legal malpractice actions against former criminal defense attorneys

Just about a year ago I reported (here) that the two most recent decisions on whether a convicted criminal defendant had to prove actual innocence in order to recover for malpractice against his or her former lawyer had broken away from the majority view on the issue.  A few months later, however, the Washington State Supreme Court reversed the trend by adhering to the majority view and holding that a criminal defendant must establish actual innocence to sue the defense attorney for malpractice.

Now comes news that last week the Idaho Supreme Court has abandoned the actual innocence rule in a case called Molen v. Christian.  In part, the court concluded:

We hold that actual innocence is not an element of a criminal malpractice cause of action. Requiring a criminal malpractice plaintiff to prove actual innocence is contrary to the fundamental principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, a criminal defendant can be harmed separately from the harm he or she incurs as a result of being guilty of a crime. . . .  Additionally, as a practical matter, requiring actual innocence would essentially eliminate a defense attorney’s duty to provide competent counsel to a client he or she knows to be guilty. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that actual innocence is not an element of a criminal malpractice cause of action.

This means that three of the last four jurisdictions to consider the issue have rejected the majority approach, which makes me wonder if what is the majority has now shifted.  I have not done a state by state survey recently, so I don't know for sure.  However, I have not read anyone make that claim yet, so I assume the majority approach is still to require a showing of actual innocence.  If someone has information about the actual count of how many states follow each approach, please let me know. 

Illinois Supreme Court adopts 'proactive management-based regulation'

Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court announced rule amendments that make Illinois the first state to adopt so-called “proactive management based regulation” (PMBR), a system designed to prevent ethical missteps by requiring lawyers without malpractice insurance to review their operations. For the text of the changes, see Amended Rule 756(e).  The Illinois State Bar Association website has more detailed information about the program here.

Forthcoming law review article on the need to re think norms, duties and the notion of value in legal services

Readers of the blog might be interested in this forthcoming law review article: Restraining Lawyers: From 'Cases' to 'Tasks' by Morris Ratner from the University of California Hastings College of the Law, which will be published by the Fordham Law Review. Here is the abstract:

Developments in the domains of procedure and private contract highlight a continuing shift in authority away from lawyers and towards courts and clients accomplished by a conceptual downshift from “cases” to “tasks.” The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit attorney and party discretion by further empowering the trial court judge to dissect, assess the value of, and sequence case activity, including discovery. At the same time, in the private sphere, sophisticated clients aided by advances in project and information management are controlling legal spend by unbundling cases into tasks. From that position, they can source projects to low-cost providers. Clients are also increasingly demanding litigation budgets and seeking value-based pricing, both of which work best if there is heightened communication between lawyer and client regarding the means to be pursued to achieve litigation aims. These regulatory and market restraints on lawyers and lawyer-driven adversarialism, while pointing in a similar direction, differ fundamentally in terms of their reach, efficacy, and fairness. Despite their differences, these developments in tandem have the potential to inspire the creation of new norms and duties calling on litigators to think more deeply and inclusively about the value of litigation tasks from the perspective of court and client.

ABA Center for Innovation is now accepting applications for its fellowship program

The ABA Center for Innovation, about which I wrote not too long ago here, is accepting applications for its inaugural fellowship program.  As reported in the ABA Journal:  "Open to both newly minted lawyers and mid-career professionals outside the law, the program seeks applications and proposals to create or develop projects to improve the legal industry. Those who wish to apply should have an idea that bridges the access-to-justice gap in the U.S.; utilizes technology to deal with a vital legal need; designs or builds a more effective way of delivering legal services; provides the public with easier access to legal information; reduces the backlog of cases in various courts throughout the country; creates tools that allow lawyers to better represent their clients; or helps pro se litigants represent themselves more effectively. The deadline for applicants is Jan. 31."

"Innovation," as you may recall, was my pick for the hot topic of the year last year -- a claim I spoke about at the International Legal Ethics Conference in New York last summer.  But, as I discussed during that presentation, the concept is too broad and often used to mean different things.  For my posts on all topics somehow related to the issues raised by the concept of innovation, you can go here and scroll down.

Pennsylvania rejects ABA Rule 8.4(g) approach to regulation of discriminatory conduct and proposes new rule similar to the one in Illinois

Just a few minutes ago I posted an item on the much discussed newly adopted ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), and then I found this new bit of news:  Last month the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board proposed an amendment to the state's Rule 8.4 to address the issue of discriminatory conduct.  Interestingly, however, the proposal actually rejects the ABA Model Rule and proposes instead the approach currently in place in Illinois.  The proposal would amend the current rule to make it misconduct to "violate a federal, state or local statute or ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status by conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer."  This is the same language that has been in Illinois Rule 8.4(j) since 2010.

Obviously, the Illinois approach is much narrower than the new ABA Rule, but it avoids the potential problem of imposing discipline for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Under the ABA rule, the disciplinary agency itself makes the determination of whether the lawyer committed discriminatory conduct. Under the Pennsylvania proposal, that conduct must violate an applicable law, and if there is a forum to make the determination of whether the lawyer committed a violation, that process must take place first. 

Texas Attorney General thinks new anti-discrimination Model Rule is unconstitutional

The ABA recently approved an amendment to Model Rule 8.4 to make it misconduct to use discriminatory or biased speech.  Back in January I wrote a long comment on the original proposal, which was changed before it was approved.  The approved version addressed some of the issues I had originally objected to, but I still have reservations about the approved language because it seems to punish protected speech.  You can read my most recent comments on it here,  here and here. 

Now comes news that the Texas attorney general has expressed the view that the rule is unconstitutional.  The rule has not yet been adopted in Texas.  The ABA Journal has more on the story here.

Recent article on the criminal justice system

For those of you interested in issues related to the criminal justice system, you may want to check out a new article by David Patton (NYU Law School) which will be published by the Cornell Law Review.  In addition to discussing policy and constitutional law, the author argues that there are serious ethical problems with the current system of federal judges administering the system of federal public defense.  Here is the full abstract:

Independence is a foundational requirement for any good system of public criminal defense. The Constitution guarantees anyone charged with a crime the right to a defense attorney regardless of ability to pay, and that attorney has the ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense, free from any conflicting outside influence. And yet the system of federal public defense is funded, managed, and supervised by the very judges in front of whom defenders must vigorously defend their clients. The arrangement creates serious constitutional, ethical, and policy problems. This Article proposes a solution: an independent federal defense agency. The agency proposed, the Center for Federal Public Defense (CFPD), would administer federal defenders’ offices, manage the system of appointed private attorneys, and seek funding from Congress for indigent defense services. The Article places the discussion of the proposed organization in the context of other independent agencies that do not fit neatly into a single branch of government, sometimes described as “boundary organizations.”  In many ways, federal public defense is ideally suited for placement outside of the formal branches of government. Many congressionally created independent organizations are structurally problematic because of separation-of-powers concerns that arise from the agencies’ enforcement or rulemaking authority. Federal public defense attorneys, however, neither make rules nor enforce them. And because of the nature of their work, they legitimately require insulation from direct government control — including from the Judiciary. In a criminal justice system that relies on its adversarial nature to function properly, it would be inconceivable to have judges decide who is hired in a prosecutor’s office, how much they should be paid, or how and whether prosecutors should investigate individual cases. It would be equally problematic to have the Judiciary act as the voice of the Department of Justice in Congress when explaining resource needs and seeking appropriations. And yet the Judiciary currently does all of those things with respect to the defense function. It should not, and the fix is straightforward: the creation of an independent defender organization.

You can download the full article here.

ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issues new opinion on safeguarding fees to be split with lawyers outside the firm

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued a new Formal Opinion (No.475) to explain the duties of a lawyer who receives earned fees that must be shared with a lawyer from another law firm.  According to the opinion, the lawyer who receives the money must take steps to appropriately safeguard the funds by placing them in an account separate from his or her own property.  The attorney must then promptly notify the other lawyer, promptly forward the agreed portion to the other lawyer, and provide an accounting if the other lawyer requests it.  The opinion is available here for a limited time.

Not all jurisdictions agree with the approach but it makes sense to me.  The alternative is to have the lawyer transfer the money to the lawyer's general account and then pay the outside lawyer with funds from there.  Either way, the money will be commingling with either clients' money or lawyer's funds for a period of time.

IPethics & INsights has a nice comment on the opinion and its applicability to IP practice here. The Lawyer Ethics Alert Blog also has a comment on the opinion here.

Comment on jury nullification

Above the Law has published an interesting take on the issue of jury nullification.  You can read it here.

New Mexico public defender held in contempt for refusing to take cases arguing high caseloads impede proper representation

New Mexico’s chief public defender has been found in contempt of court and fined $5,000 for refusing to provide lawyers to represent criminal defendants in five cases because of his office’s high caseloads.  The ABA Journal has the story here.  Simple Justice has a good comment about it here.

Short comment on the different approaches to ghostwriting

A few years ago, the issue of whether it was proper for an attorney to "ghostwrite" documents for pro se litigants was hotly debated.  Some jurisdictions took the position that it was ok, other required lawyers to disclose their role.  See here and here for example. 

I had not see much on the issue since then until a few days ago, when I saw a short comment in Lawyerist summarizing the state of the law.  You can read it here.

Pennsylvania adopts new rule related to counseling clients in marijuana business

The Legal Profession blog is reporting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted an amendment to its rules to add a new subsection (e) to Rule 1.2, which states: "A lawyer may counsel or assist a client regarding conduct expressly permitted by Pennsylvania law, provided that the lawyer counsels the client about the legal consequences, under other applicable law, of the client's proposed course of conduct." The rule adopted differs slightly from the proposed rule change published back in May. That original proposal allowed lawyers to counsel clients on conduct expressly permitted by the law of the state where it takes place or has its predominant effect. The adopted rule addresses only conduct permitted under Pennsylvania law.

As you may remember, several other states addressed the issue this year.  Ohio first banned lawyers from counseling clients, but later adopted a rule to allow it (see here and here).  Colorado amended the comment to its rules to address the issue.  See here and here.  For a general comment on the issue, go here.

California proposes change to rule regarding sex with clients

Model Rule 1.8(j) was adopted a number of years ago to regulate possible sexual relationships with clients.  It states that "a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced."   

The topic is now back in the news because a few days ago it was reported that California is considering adopting the Model Rule's approach to the question (as part of an overhaul of the state’s disciplinary rules).  The current rule in California bars lawyers from coercing sex with a client or demanding sex in exchange for legal representation.  For more details and links go to NPR, or the ABA Journal.  For a comment on the proposal go to Simple Justice.

The topic was also proved difficulty in Texas when it considered changes to the rules back in 2010.

My article on Avvo is now available

During the spring and summer I wrote an article on ethical issues related to joining Avvo Legal Services.  I started writing the article soon after Avvo announced the new service, and finished it before the recent ethics opinions from Ohio, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania.  Georgetown agreed to publish the original article, but because it took them a long time to get around to it I had the chance to update the draft a little bit based on the recent opinions.  Now the article is finally available.  You can go to the Georgetown website and read it or download it here. 

Utah Supreme Court dismisses professional responsibility concerns over case in which plaintiff and defendant were the same person

I recently read in the Legal Profession blog a summary of a recent decision out of the Utah Supreme Court with the oddest fact pattern I have seen all year, which provides an interesting discussion of issues related to the two courses I teach: Torts and Professional Responsbility.  The case is Bagley v. Bagley and you can read the full opinion here.

Here are the facts of the case: One day back in 2011, Ms. Barbara Bagley, the common law wife of Bradley Vom Baur, lost control of the car in which they were traveling. Mr. Vom Baur was thrown from the vehicle and sustained severe injuries due to which he died ten days later.  Eventually, in her dual capacities as sole heir and personal representative of the estate of Bradley Vom Baur, Ms. Bagley sued herself in an attempt to compel her insurance company to indemnify her.  Ms. Bagley was, therefore, the plaintiff and the named defendant in the lawsuit at the same time. 

Plaintiff Bagley brought her first cause of action pursuant to Utah’s wrongful death statute, alleging that Defendant Bagley (herself) negligently caused Mr. Vom Baur’s death, thereby depriving his sole heir (ie, Plaintiff Bagley herself) of Mr. Vom Baur’s love, companionship, society, comfort, care, protections, financial support, pleasure, and affection.

Plaintiff Bagley brought her second cause of action as the personal representative of Bradley Vom Baur‘s estate pursuant to Utah’s survival action statute, alleging that Defendant Bagley negligently caused Mr. Vom Baur to experience pain and suffering prior to his death, which entitles Mr. Vom Baur’s estate to damages such as funeral expenses and medical bills.

The trial court granted a motion to dismiss, but the court of appeals reversed. 

On these facts and based on the Court’s interpretation of the plain language of the two statutes, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held that the “wrongful death and survival action statutes permit a person acting in the legal capacity of an heir or personal representative to sue him or herself in an individual capacity for negligently causing a decedent’s death or injury.”

In the case before the Supreme Court Ms. Bagley as plaintiff and Ms. Bagley as defendant was (were?) represented by a different law firms, but the Utah Defense Lawyers Association filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the case would have negative consequences on the practice of law and that it presented impermissible conflict of interest.  Among other things, the Association argued that the case “distorts the attorney-client relationship by creating a concurrent conflict of interest because “defense counsel’s representation of the client as the defendant is directly adverse to defense counsel’s representation of that same person who is also the plaintiff.”  It also argued that the conflict would affect an attorney’s ability to communicate with his or her client, because, among other things, the client knows that anything she reveals will be used against her.  Finally, the Association also raised concerns about jury confusion and the ability of an attorney to cross-examine his own client.

The Court admitted that the arguments “are not without merit” but dismissed them holding that the situation did not create a concurrent conflict because plaintiffs and defendant were acting “in different legal roles.”  (See footnote 37 of the opinion)

You can read the full opinion here.

District of Columbia Bar new opinions on social media use

The Legal Ethics Committee of the District of Columbia Bar has just issued two opinions on social media use.  Ethics Opinion 370 is available here.  Ethics Opinion 371 is available here.  The Legal Profession blog has a summary here.

Opinion 370, does not seem to add anything new.  It concludes that "a lawyer who chooses to maintain a presence on social media, for personal or professional reasons, must take affirmative steps to remain competent regarding the technology being used and to ensure compliance with the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct."

Opinion 371, on the other hand, provides more information and analysis in an attempt to provide  guidance about "advice and conduct by lawyers related to social media in the provision of legal services, including whether certain advice and conduct are required, permitted, or prohibited by the Rules."

One of my recent articles is now available online

My essay Through the Looking Glass in Indiana: Mandatory Reporting Child Abuse and the Duty of Confidentiality was recently published by Notre Dame and it is now available here.

Review of the state of the law on advanced conflicts waivers

IPethics & INsights has published two articles reviewing the current state of the law on advanced waivers.  Go here for part 1 and here for part 2.   Here is part of the introduction:

Some law firms try to avoid or limit their exposure to [conflicts of interests] by contracting with their clients to waive conflicts even before the facts giving rise to such conflicts are known either to the client or the law firm. Indeed, in large law firms that typically employ hundreds of lawyers in multiple offices around the globe, it is commonplace for their standard engagement agreements to include language in which the client agrees as part of the representation to waive in advance future conflicts of interest.

But are such “advanced waivers” ethical? It is one of the most vexing questions that has dogged law firms, regulators, and ethics counsel for years.

. . . . For lawyers who want a clear, definitive, black and white answer to the question of the legality and enforceability of advanced conflict waivers, unfortunately there is none. Ethics opinions and court rulings have created a patchwork of opinions. This lack of uniform treatment of advanced conflict waiver leads to unpredictability . . .  that most lawyers would rather avoid.

Please vote for the blog!

I am happy to report that my humble blog is one of the finalists in the 2016 Best Legal Blog Contest.  But it now needs your help!   Please vote for it by going here.  Tell your friends!

To check other nominated blogs (in many different categories) and the vote totals go here.

Comment on the new ABA rule on CLE panels

In 2008, the American Bar Association adopted as a goal to work to "eliminate bias and enhance diversity” by promoting full and equal participation in the association, our profession, and the justice system by all persons by eliminating bias in the legal profession and the Justice System.

As part of that effort, the ABA in turn adopted a new mandatory rule for all ABA-sponsored continuing legal education programs to regulate the composition of panels of speakers.  Is this a good idea?  Professor Ronald Rotunda (Chapman) offers his view on the issue in his latest column at Verdict.

The Sixth Amendment Center analyzes the “Indiana Model” for providing right to counsel services

The Sixth Amendment Center has published two articles analyzing in detail Indiana's system for providing attorneys to indigent defendants.  It concludes the system does not work.  You can read the articles, and the report they are based on, here and here.

Podcast on the ABA Report on the Future of Legal Services

Last August I reported on the ABA Report on the Future of Legal Services and concluded that I was not impressed.  You can read my detailed reasons, and check out links to more information and comments here.

Today, the Legal Talk Network has posted a podcast discussing the report.  You can listen to it by pressing on the play button below.  If you can't see the button below, you can go here.

Here is the description of the program:

Many lawyers are familiar with the varied services and resources that the American Bar Association provides to their members around the country. In this episode of The Digital Edge, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway talk with Vandenack Williams LLC. founder Mary Vandenack about the American Bar Association Future of Legal Services commission, the data found in that study, and how those findings can help lawyers improve and prepare for the future of law. Mary Vandenack served on the American Bar Association Commission on the Future of Legal Services and currently serves as co-chair on the Futures Taskforce and co-chair of the Economics and Technology Committee of the ABA Section of Real Property, Trust, & Estate Law.

Judge assigned to wrongful death case against Hilary Clinton steps aside and asks for case to be reassigned after allegations of forum shopping

Back in August I reported that the parents of two Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, filed a lawsuit Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, alleging the 2012 attack "was directly and proximately caused" by the then-secretary of state's mishandling of government secrets.  I my post (here) I suggested the allegations in the complaint would be very difficult to prove and that there was a chance the case would be considered a frivolous lawsuit, in which case it should be dismissed and the lawyer should be sanctioned.

Now, a new report published in Politico (here) provides an interesting update on the story.  The judge who had been assigned the case decided to set aside and send the case back for reassignment.  It turns out the attorney who filed the case wanted that specific judge (a long time Clinton critic) and apparently tried to manipulate the system in order to get him.  According to the story, Clinton's lawyers filed a motion arguing, among other things that the plaintiffs' lawyer has a history of "judge shopping" and the judge gave up the case.

This new development adds to my concern over the plaintiffs' lawyer.  Did he first file a frivolous lawsuit and then try to manipulate the system in order to shop for the judge he wanted?   Will there be a hearing to discuss these questions?  Will the new judge impose sanctions?  Stay tuned...

California Appeals Court upholds disqualification of entire DA's office -- UPDATE

Back in March of 2015, I reported that a state judge in California removed an entire DA's office from a high-profile murder prosecution because prosecutorial misconduct had tainted the entire office’s handling of the case. The judge reassigned the case to the California attorney general, who appealed the ruling.  Go here for a New York Times article with more information on the original story.  The state legislature eventually adopted a statute to manage prosecutorial misconduct.  See here.

More than a year later, the California appeals court heard the oral arguments over whether the Orange County judge was right to remove the entire district attorney’s office.  The ABA Journal has more information here.

UPDATE (12/3/16):   In what the ABA Journal is calling a "blistering" and "sharply worded" ruling, the Court has upheld the order disqualifying the entire DA's office.  The opinion can be found here.

Pennsylvania Opinion finds participating in program like Avvo Legal Services to be unethical

For the third time in four months, a state bar ethics committee has warned attorneys that participating in an Avvo like client referral program would be unethical.  Similar to opinions in Ohio and South Carolina, and to rules revisions in Florida, the Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Op. 2016-200 holding that attorneys risk violating several ethics rules if they participate in a program like Avvo Legal Services.

I have not been able to find a copy of the opinion yet, but an article in the BNA/ABA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct reports that it finds a number of problems with the way the program is set up an implemented. For example, it finds that what Avvo claims is a marketing or advertising fee does “not correspond to any traditional model of compensation for advertising,” that the program improperly “delegates to a non-lawyer several critical decisions and functions that fall within the exclusive domain of the practice of law,” that it interferes with attorneys’ duty to exercise independent professional judgment, that it hampers a lawyer's ability to comply with Rule 1.16(d), which requires lawyers to refund any fees that have not been earned at the end of a representation, that the management of the fees constitutes commingling and a violation of the duty to safeguard client property and that it threatens the confidentiality of information related to the representation.

This comes as no surprise to me, or to longtime readers of this blog.  I have argued both here and in an upcoming article, that under the current regulatory system, Avvo Legal Services puts lawyers in positions to violate a number of rules and that Avvo's arguments to the contrary are not convincing.  See here, here and here for example.

However, saying that participating in Avvo Legal Services would violate the rules is not the end of the issue.  The question then becomes whether the rules should be changed to accommodate what Avvo wants to do. Interestingly, I don't think this is what Avvo has been arguing in response to the opinions around the country.  Instead of saying that the rules should be changed, Avvo typically argues that the rules don't apply or should not be followed.

Others, on the other hand, have been making more thoughtful arguments.  For example, solo attorney-blogger Carolyn Elefant has published an interesting post in My Shingle in which she argues why the rules should be changed to allow services like Avvo Legal Services to operate the way they want to.  Among other things, she argues that rules should not require lawyers to use trust accounts at all, which I imagine will be controversial.

Also, Professor Milan Markovic (Texas A&M) criticizes the approach of some of the opinions on Avvo as mechanistic.  You can read his comment here.

Virginia clarifies duty of candor regarding possible perjury

The Legal Profession Blog is reporting that the Supreme Court of Virginia has approved amendments to Rules 1.6 and 3.3. The amendments clarify a lawyer’s obligations when a client discloses his or her intent to commit perjury in advance of trial, and whether the lawyer can withdraw from the representation before the client’s intended perjury occurs.  You can read the amendments here.

California: Prosecutors who withhold evidence can be charged with a felony

Long time readers of this blog know I often complain about the fact that courts do not seem to take prosecutorial misconduct too seriously.  Go here, here, and here, for a few examples; and you can go to the prosecutors tag and scroll down for lots of stories, and links on the topic.

Well, today, I am posting good news, for a change. Almost exactly one year ago, I posted (here) that California had adopted a new law to bolster a judge's ability to disqualify a prosecutor or an entire prosecuting attorney's office and to make it mandatory for judges to report violations to the state bar. 

Now, California has gone even further by making it a felony crime to withhold exculpatory evidence. Violators of the law could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.  The ABA Journal has more details here.

Five Myths About USPTO Ethics Investigations and Disciplinary Complaints

IPethics & INsights  has published a short and informative post called Five Myths About USPTO Ethics Investigations and Disciplinary Complaints.  You can read it here.  The five myths are:

1. The OED Only Cares About Practice Before the USPTO

2. If I Am Not A Registered Patent Practitioner The OED Does Not Care About My Conduct

3. The USPTO Prefers to Let the State Bars Investigate Ethics Violations

4. Discipline by the USPTO Will Not Impact State or Federal Bar Licenses

5. The OED Will Only Conduct an Ethics Investigation When Someone Files A Complaint

NYC Bar Ethics Committee issues opinion holding that prosecutors’ duty to disclose is broader than the duty imposed by Brady v Maryland

As you probably know, there are differences of opinion as to whether the duty to disclose information imposed on prosecutors by ABA Model Rule 3.8 is broader than the duty imposed by the constitutional standards in Brady v. Maryland.  The ABA Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility held that it does in Formal Opinion 09-454, but a few jurisdictions have held otherwise.  I have written about this in the past here.  (And for all my posts on prosecutors' duty to disclose evidence go here.)

Courts or Ethics Committees have also decided the duty under rules of professional conduct is broader in Utah, Texas, North Dakota, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  Courts or Committees have decided otherwise in Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado, Louisiana and Wisconsin.

Now comes news that the New York City bar's ethics committee has issued an opinion holding that a prosecutor's ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence is broader than the constitutional minimums imposed by Brady v. Maryland.  See N.Y.C. Bar Ass'n Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Op. 2016-3, 7/22/15.

Thanks to the ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct for all the links. 

UPDATE 10-29-16:  Legal Ethics in Motion has a comment here.

Ohio Supreme Court adopts amendment to allow lawyers to advise clients in legal marijuana business

Just about a month ago, I reported that the Ohio board that oversees attorney conduct decided that attorneys aren’t allowed to help someone establish a legal medical marijuana-related business in the state because using, growing and selling marijuana remains a federal crime.  A few days later, I updated the story when it was reported that the Ohio Supreme Court would consider a draft amendment to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct to address the issue.

The Court not only prepared the draft, it just formally adopted the amendment. The amendment modifies Prof. Cond. R. 1.2(d)(2) by adding a new subsection, which reads:  “A lawyer may counsel or assist a client regarding conduct expressly permitted under Sub.H.B. 523 of the 131st General Assembly authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes and any state statutes, rules, orders, or other provisions implementing the act. In these circumstances, the lawyer shall advise the client regarding related federal law.”

Thanks to the Legal Profession blog for the update.