We previously discussed whether lawyers can withdraw from a representation simply because they want to and withdrawing would not have a materially adverse impact on the client (think hot potato). But what happens when the lawyer is representing the client before a tribunal? What can lawyers disclose when they have made the
Think your conversations with ChatGPT or Claude are just between you and the machine? Think again.
A groundbreaking ruling out of New York just changed the game for anyone using AI tools to discuss legal matters. In United States v. Bradley Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of
We recently discussed the ethics rules that lawyers must bear in mind when trying to attract new clients through social media channels. Practitioners may find it difficult to avoid social media in their daily practice. There are many traps for the unwary when using social media in the context of litigation. It is worthwhile for
For decades, commentators and practitioners have bemoaned the deteriorating level of collegiality in the practice of law. But at the same time, popular culture and advertising have glorified (and financially rewarded) lawyers with a pugilistic character. And research suggests that bullying can go on as much within a firm as between them. Do we have
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (the “Committee”) recently issued its first opinion on generative AI and not a day too soon. While states such as Florida, California, West Virginia, and Kentucky, as well as the District of Columbia have issued generative AI guidance, most states have yet
Like it or not, artificial intelligence is not going away and it’s evolving—quickly. While AI talk has been brewing for quite some time, many of us assumed AI’s direct effect on our business was still years off. But over the last year the pace of development and use has accelerated exponentially and it is
Many of us have had the experience of opposing counsel copying their client on an email about the matter (and sometimes an email that takes us to task for some supposed transgression). The immediate response may be to “Reply All” and tell the lawyer (and their client) that they are wrong. Satisfying, but when you
Model Rule 4.2 is often referred to as the “no-contact” rule, prohibiting lawyers from contacting represented parties regarding the subject matter of the representation without first obtaining a court order or the consent of the other party’s lawyer. Just last month, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 502, which warns pro se lawyers—that is, lawyers
The “no contact rule” set out in Model Rule 4.2 can be a source of confusion for many lawyers. The rule prohibits a lawyer from communicating with a represented person about the subject of the representation without the consent of the other lawyer. We have discussed the rule before in the corporate context, but
The scope of the “no-contact rule” — barring a lawyer from communicating with represented persons — is spotlighted in a disqualification ruling that a Florida district court handed down earlier this month. The opinion is a reminder that the prohibition against contact (without permission of the person’s counsel) extends only to “the subject of the