Old-time lawyers say that it used to be easy to get the court’s permission to withdraw from a case. You would just go to the judge and state, “Your Honor, we are not ready to go forward, and I am seeking leave to withdraw, because Mr. Green has not arrived.” You know: “Mr. Green” aka the moolah, aka the promised fee from the client. And, so the story goes, the judge would bang the gavel and grant your motion.
Data breach report says BigLaw is most likely to be hit, and cybersecurity complaint is unsealed
Law firm cybersecurity is in the news again with two developments. First, the latest ABA TechReport says that large law firms were more likely to be victims of a data security breach last year than mid-size or small firms, with one in seven respondents having been hit overall. That’s a big deal. Next, a federal class action complaint in what is thought to be the first suit attempting to base liability solely on a U.S. law firm’s allegedly inadequate cybersecurity was unsealed on December 9. But that suit possibly turns out not to be such a big deal.
Warning from WA: lawyer’s post-employment interviews with former employees not privileged
A sharply-divided Washington Supreme Court has ruled that an organization’s attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply to communications between the company’s lawyers and its former employees. Although Newman v. Highland School District No. 23o adheres to a minority viewpoint, the implications are troubling, and the bright-line test that the state supreme court established in a case of first impression will require new cautions in cases where Washington state privilege law applies.
Expressing your opinion via social media can create conflict, D.C. ethics opinion warns
If you “like” a political Facebook post, or tweet a comment on a controversial legal topic, are you potentially creating an ethical conflict of interest with your clients who may have contrary interests? The District of Columbia bar ethics committee thinks so, and warns about the risk in its Opinion 370, issued late last month.
Five reasons why lawyers should be thankful
Last year at this time, we published this post on gratitude, and it resonated with a lot of lawyers. Here it is again, slightly revised. Have a grateful Thanksgiving holiday.
Looking at the roiling current of world events, many of them dark and discouraging, can justifiably make us anxious and depressed. Our times seem indelibly
You can’t spy on opposing counsel by “bugging” their e-mail, ethics opinion says
Alaska may have only about 2,500 active resident lawyers, but its bar ethics committee has become just the second authority in the country to weigh in on the practice of “bugging” the e-mail of opposing counsel. The committee disapproved of this spy method in an opinion issued in late October, saying that it violated the Last Frontier’s version of Model Rule 8.4, which prohibits dishonesty and misrepresentation.
Being a technology “dinosaur” leads to license surrender in the Great North
Technophobia isn’t confined to U.S. lawyers — no surprise, it affects Canadian members of the bar, too, with the same potentially disastrous results. Last month’s cautionary tale: a lawyer who was technologically illiterate failed to supervise his wife, who ran his office and used his bar credentials to misappropriate more than $3000,000 without his knowledge. Canadian disciplinary authorities permitted him to surrender his license voluntarily, instead of revoking it.
“No contact” rule didn’t bar interview with represented suspect, district court holds
When the government comes knocking during a grand jury investigation, can a G-man interview one of your executives without getting consent from counsel? Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine said “Yes,” and refused to suppress an executive’s statements in the tax fraud case against him, holding that the ex parte chat didn’t violate ethics rules. The case shows how in a federal criminal investigation, an exception to the well-known “no-contact” rule can sweep away its protection.
LinkedIn “endorsement” upgrade shows need to monitor what others say about you online
LinkedIn last week announced a “rethinking” of its endorsement feature, first launched in 2012. Starting with its mobile app, the service says it has “improved targeting” so people looking at your profile will see the endorsements for you that are most relevant to them. Coming on the heels of this development, a new Ohio ethics opinion reminds us that we should be monitoring endorsements and other kinds of testimonials to ensure they are within ethical bounds.
Ethics opinion nixes use of verein names in TX, but firms say “Business as usual.”
As we’ve predicted before, the increasing globalization of high-level legal practice continues to create questions about forms of legal practice – in particular, vereins, a structure aimed at letting firms based in different countries operate under a unified brand. Mega-firms Fulbright & Jaworski and Dentons have faced motions to disqualify centered on structural issues, and now a Texas ethics opinion issued last month questions whether lawyers in the Lone Star state can use a verein name on pleadings.