Some ethics violations happen because a lawyer carefully analyzes a debatable situation and draws a good-faith, but incorrect, conclusion. And then there are the lawyers who leave me wondering. Let’s say your divorce client hacks into his future-former-wife’s e-mail account and hands you her payroll information and the direct examination questions that her lawyer has e-mailed her in preparation for trial. Raise your hand if you think you can use that evidence.
Violating confidentiality order results in lawyer’s DQ and referral to state ethics board
Courts often analyze motions to disqualify by balancing the need to uphold professional standards against the rights of clients to choose their lawyers freely. The New Jersey court of appeals struck that balance earlier this month in upholding the disqualification of a lawyer who violated a confidentiality order, finding that the lawyer knowingly disobeyed a court order, among other violations.
Filing administrative appeal without being admitted results in dismissal
The client of a Colorado lawyer who filed an administrative appeal in North Dakota without being admitted there got a harsh result — the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in Blume Construction v. State that the lawyer’s action was the unauthorized practice of law, and therefore that the client’s appeal was void.
Admission ticket required
Lawyers on hot seat after using paralegal to friend opposing party
Two New Jersey lawyers cannot avoid disciplinary charges arising from their use of a paralegal to friend a represented opposing party on Facebook, the state supreme court ruled recently.
Panama Papers spotlight danger of failing to screen for problem clients
The leak of millions of documents apparently hacked from Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonesca has exposed the tax strategies of some of the world’s elite. But the Panama Papers also shine a light on some failures of Mossack Fonesca to screen out problematic clients — failures of due diligence that the firm itself recognized.
Petropars
Unpaid legal interns’ work can be billed to clients as fees or costs, NY state bar ass’n says
In today’s soft legal services market, some aspiring members of the profession feel pressure to work for free, but the fairness of such arrangements in general has come under scrutiny. In a twist, the New York State Bar Association earlier this month said that law firms could bill clients for services provided by unpaid legal interns, as long as the amount is not excessive, and the internship program complies with applicable law.
“Don’t they have e-filing where you come from?” Tech-challenged lawyer dodges suspension
My spouse and I visited Chicago years ago, and confusedly started driving the wrong way down a one-way street. We were promptly pulled over by one of the Windy City’s finest. I gave him my best smile, and said, “Sorry, officer, we’re from out of town.” He grunted, “Don’t they have one-way streets where you come from?” But he didn’t give us a ticket. A recent disciplinary opinion out of Oklahoma, involving a tech-challenged bankruptcy lawyer, brings the story to mind.
No duty to raise claims unless “viable,” even if they are “colorable,” says court
A lawyer’s duty of care to a client does not include raising claims on the client’s behalf that are merely “colorable,” and not actually “viable,” the Oregon Supreme Court held last month. The court quoted with approval from an amicus brief from the state’s mandatory provider of malpractice insurance, which said that a “colorability” standard would only promote “scorched earth litigation,” and expose lawyers to “hindsight bias.”
Lawyers can’t necessarily disclose former client info, even if it’s “publicly available”
You’re chatting with your pals at the bar association cocktail hour, and talk turns to the indictment just handed down against a former city official. Someone says, “Hey, didn’t your firm used to represent her?” “Yes,” you reply, “and a couple years ago, I had a really interesting case involving her. Maybe I shouldn’t discuss
Privilege shields internal firm discussions about conflict, N.D. Cal. magistrate rules
Internal discussions among Orrick’s chief legal officer and other firm lawyers about a conflict of interest remain privileged under federal common law, a federal magistrate judge for the Northern District of California has held, in quashing a third-party subpoena directed to the firm — even though the firm still represented the client at the time of the discussions. The opinion is the latest in the line of federal and state cases that have been developing a jurisprudence of law-firm privilege.