The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (the “Committee”) issued its most recent opinion, which has an interesting new take on Model Rule 1.16 and the hot potato rule.
Rule 1.16 addresses lawyer withdrawal. Subsection (a) defines when lawyers must withdraw or terminate their representation of a client, and
A common situation faced by law firms – and especially larger law firms – is the potential conflicts and disqualifications posed by Model Rule 1.10(a)’s imputation of one lawyer’s conflicts to all lawyers in the firm. This can become a substantial issue when different lawyers get initial calls from different parties to an event or
A New York district court judge last month disqualified a firm representing hundreds of 401(k) plan participants based on a conflict of interest. The judge called the risks posed “endless,” and requested additional briefing on whether the firm would be allowed to remain as counsel in related arbitration proceedings in Missouri. The ruling spotlights the
Defense counsel did not act beyond the scope of their pro hac vice admission by contacting some of their client’s former employees and offering to represent them at their depositions, said a California district court last week, turning back plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify the Ohio lawyers. In its opinion the court analyzed both pro hac
A New Jersey lawyer’s involvement in the sale of a massage parlor rubbed the district court the wrong way and resulted in his disqualification from a later suit over the transaction. In its opinion last month, the court ruled that the buyer was the lawyer’s former client, and that the earlier work on the sale
Can we be Facebook friends? That’s one question left open by the ABA earlier this month in Formal Opinion 488, on the subject of judges’ personal relationships with lawyers as grounds for disqualification. While spotlighting judicial ethics duties in maintaining impartiality, the opinion fails to provide some needed guidance on social media relationships.
Model
The California court of appeals has denied a bid by an employment discrimination defendant to disqualify the plaintiff’s legal team. The name partner in the law firm representing the plaintiff was formerly the employer’s chief operating officer — but the court rejected the assertion that his firm should be disqualified merely based on his knowledge
“DQ” at this time of year makes me think of drive-in ice-cream cones. But I actually mean “DQ” as in “disqualification,” and instead of sugar cones, it points to an interesting case involving some take-home lessons about conflicts of interest.
Crisis of unhoused residents
California’s massive homelessness problem has been the subject of several federal
A Washington appellate court recently disqualified a county prosecutor’s entire office from participating in the re-trial of a murder case. The chief prosecutor had previously represented the defendant while in private practice. The case shines a light on government lawyers and imputed conflicts of interest.
Election win spells DQ
The county prosecuting attorney, Garth Dano,
You can’t interview potential expert witnesses and share confidential information with them solely to taint them with a conflict that would prevent the experts from working for the other side, the Texas State Bar Professional Ethics Committee recently said in Opinion No. 676.
“T’aint” ethical
Lots of litigation requires expert testimony in order to