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
No DQ for contacting represented party on a different subject, district court says
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
Reminder from the bench: professionalism means not comparing opposing party to a buzzard or Porky Pig
We’ve written a lot over the past six years about the Rules of Professional Conduct, and for good reason. The lawyer conduct rules represent a floor: when your conduct sinks below the floor, you can merit professional discipline. But there are other norms and mores in our legal community, namely standards of professionalism. As the
Can we talk? In-house counsel and opponent’s lawyer can communicate, says Va. opinion
Most lawyers have a general understanding of the “no-contact rule” — namely that under state versions of Model Rule 4.2, with a few exceptions, you can’t communicate directly on the subject of the representation with someone you know is represented by counsel. But where does in-house counsel fit in? Is in-house counsel “fair game”
Brief full of “gibberish” was actually written by client, but lawyer sanctioned with fees, double costs
As widely reported in the news, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last month harshly rebuked an Illinois lawyer for submitting a rambling 86-page appellate brief that the court said was “incoherent” and “gibberish.” Quotes from the brief indeed made it appear deficient. (One section, said the court, consisted solely of the heading “GAMESMANSHIP” and
Arrest threat draws suspension for NY lawyer
A New York lawyer representing a landlord was suspended earlier this month for conduct that included threatening a tenant with arrest and telling him that he was worthless and should commit suicide.
In its opinion, the court found that the lawyer violated Rule 3.4(e) of the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which bars threatening
Client can be asked to indemnify lawyer against third-party claims, says ethics opinion
You probably know about the ethics rule that prohibits lawyers from trying to prospectively limit their liability to clients (or at least I hope you do!). You can find it in your state’s version of Model Rule 1.8(h).
In an interesting twist, the Utah Ethics Advisory Committee recently opined that it’s permissible to include
Well d’uh: ABA advises lawyers to notify clients of a data breach
Some answers are so obvious that you are left wondering why the question needed to be asked in the first place. Like “should a client pay a fee it agreed to in advance?” Or, “should an attorney try his or her best to prevail?”
And now this: the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional
Riders on the storm: your ethics duties in a disaster
In the aftermath of Hurricane Florence, which last month dumped up to 35 inches of rain on parts of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland, caused 48 deaths, and up to $22 billion in property damage, comes a timely new ABA opinion about our ethical obligations related to disasters.
The hurricane did not spare
Measure twice cut once: 10th Circuit decides malpractice policy doesn’t cover overbilling claims
As the legal market continues to change, attorneys face more challenges when it comes to client relations. While the trend has been for clients to slash attorney’s fees by hiring third party auditors to review bills, or to aggressively seek discounts on fees, ethical considerations, and now the United States Court of Appeals for the