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
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
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”
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
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.
We’ve mentioned before that some courts look with disfavor on lawyers helping pro se litigants by ghostwriting briefs for them to file as their own. Some opinions discussing the issue frame the conduct as lawyer deceit, as misrepresentation, or even as potential contempt of court. In a related twist, the ABA ethics committee has recently