On January 26, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California became the first to mandate disclosure of litigation funding that parties in class actions receive from outside sources, under a revision to the court’s standing order applicable to all cases. The rule provides that “in any proposed class, collective or representative action, the required disclosure includes any person or entity that is funding the prosecution of any claim or counterclaim.”
Digital dilemma: Who owns litigation database when partners leave a firm?
A high-profile duel over rights to a legal database is playing out in state court in Boston. The warring parties are six former partners and the asbestos defense firm they left, allegedly taking with them high-value file management and other databases. The case, filed in November, raises the question: When partners leave, does a database that includes client information belong to the clients they take with them? Or to the old firm, which says it has invested heavily in developing the proprietary database?
Lawyers and marijuana: disciplinary cases on personal use highlight issues
We’ve written before about the intersection of legal ethics and marijuana, focusing on counseling clients in the marijuana space. But two recent disciplinary cases caught my eye, each involving lawyers’ personal marijuana use, and they highlight interesting issues.
CA Supreme Court rules against “categorical” privilege for public agency legal bills
In late December, a sharply divided California Supreme Court ruled that legal-fee bills in closed cases aren’t necessarily covered by attorney-client privilege. Although the case involved a discovery demand sent to a government entity under the state’s public records act, some lawyers have questioned (sub. req.) how far the privilege limitations might go.
How should firms deal with impaired lawyers? Virginia opinion points to duties
The new year heralds a new start. Many lawyers who struggle with an addiction — alcohol, drugs, gambling, food, sex — use the occasion to resolve to quit their harmful behavior, and there is a nationwide network of confidential bar organizations that can help. But what are the obligations of a firm where an impaired
Batting clean-up on 2016: positional conflicts, settlements and your firm letterhead
You may have some holiday leftovers lurking in your fridge (potato latkes, Xmas goose, black-eyed peas, New Year’s Eve caviar), and we too have some interesting ethics topics that we didn’t have room for during 2016 — so here’s a potpourri, touching on positional conflicts, coercive settlements and maybe how not to use your firm’s
What can you say when the client doesn’t pay? ABA opinion gives withdrawal guidance
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.
Data breach report says BigLaw is most likely to be hit, and cybersecurity complaint is unsealed
Law firm cybersecurity is in the news again with two developments. First, the latest ABA TechReport says that large law firms were more likely to be victims of a data security breach last year than mid-size or small firms, with one in seven respondents having been hit overall. That’s a big deal. Next, a federal class action complaint in what is thought to be the first suit attempting to base liability solely on a U.S. law firm’s allegedly inadequate cybersecurity was unsealed on December 9. But that suit possibly turns out not to be such a big deal.
Warning from WA: lawyer’s post-employment interviews with former employees not privileged
A sharply-divided Washington Supreme Court has ruled that an organization’s attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply to communications between the company’s lawyers and its former employees. Although Newman v. Highland School District No. 23o adheres to a minority viewpoint, the implications are troubling, and the bright-line test that the state supreme court established in a case of first impression will require new cautions in cases where Washington state privilege law applies.
Expressing your opinion via social media can create conflict, D.C. ethics opinion warns
If you “like” a political Facebook post, or tweet a comment on a controversial legal topic, are you potentially creating an ethical conflict of interest with your clients who may have contrary interests? The District of Columbia bar ethics committee thinks so, and warns about the risk in its Opinion 370, issued late last month.