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
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
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
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
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
We’ve written before about what you can and cannot say when withdrawing from representation. Now a Texas bar ethics opinion adds a twist: what can you tell an insurance company that retains you to represent its insured, when the client won’t cooperate?
Lonely in the Lone Star state
A Texas lawyer had a quandary. An
If you believe that you may have materially erred in a current client’s representation, your duty of communication under Rule 1.4 requires you to inform the client.
That’s the unsurprising conclusion that the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility reached in its latest opinion, issued April 17.
Of note, though, is that
We’ve written before about the breadth of the duty of confidentiality we owe to our clients, and how it even extends to matters that you think are safe to discuss because they are of “public record.” (See here and here.) Now comes the ABA’s latest on the subject of lawyer “public commentary” — Formal
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.
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.