The Law for Lawyers Today will be taking a short break over the holidays. We’ll be back with fresh and timely updates on January 8, 2015!
Sticks and stones? Censure recommended for discourtesy, prosecution threats
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” That may or may not be true, depending on who you ask.
We should take note of that adage when dealing with adversaries who really get under our skin. Virtually all lawyers send snarky e-mails and missives now and then. But in
No insurance coverage for attorneys’ fees that were ordered as a “sanction”
If you or your firm were ordered to pay a party’s legal fees as a “sanction” for professional misconduct, would your professional liability insurance cover that payment?
In a recent case, the district court for the Northern District of Illinois left a law firm high and dry, holding that the policy exclusion for sanctions meant
Non-compete agreement brings reprimand
Here’s a reminder that when it comes to running a law business, the ethics rules limit the ability to restrict competition.
The Indiana Supreme Court recently issued a public reprimand to a lawyer who violated the state’s version of Model Rule 5.6(a), which bars employment agreements restricting a lawyer’s right to practice after termination.
No free speech right to impugn judge’s integrity absent objectively reasonable basis, court holds
The First Amendment does not protect a lawyer who disparages the integrity of a judicial officer without an “objectively reasonable factual basis,” the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently held in Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Hall.
The lawyer was an officer in his mother’s beauty academy business; he defended the company against a
No disqualification, even where parent and subsidiary are unified, district court rules
Although a corporate parent and its subsidiary may be unified in structure, that may not be enough to disqualify a law firm that is involved in suing the subsidiary while representing the parent.
That’s the message the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently sent via its decision in HLP Properties
Preliminary evaluation of case was opinion, not fraud, Georgia court holds
Can you get into trouble by giving a “preliminary opinion” about what a client’s claim might be worth? Possibly. But in Burds v. Hipes, a Georgia lawyer recently dodged a bullet when the state court of appeals held that an initial opinion about the possible value of the client’s claim was not actionable under
Pot prescription does not make lawyer’s own use ethical, says North Dakota
We posted here in July about the legal ethics aspects of representing clients involved in the marijuana industry.
Now comes an ethics ruling from North Dakota about a lawyer’s own use of medical marijuana. The lawyer, living in North Dakota and licensed there, has a medical condition that qualifies the lawyer for medical marijuana treatment
Limited-scope engagement letter helps lawyer avoid discipline
Rule 1.2(c) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits lawyers to enter into limited-scope engagements, in which you can agree with the client that you will be providing only certain designated legal services, and not the full scope of services that might ordinarily be expected in an engagement of that sort. The rule is
Reminder: check for client’s insurance, or you may be liable for malpractice
Failing to check whether the claim against your client might be covered by insurance can get you in hot water — or at least keep you there, preventing a speedy exit from a malpractice suit, as a Florida lawyer recently learned.
In Pharma Supply, Inc. v. Stein (PACER access ID required), the client alleged it