The prohibition against aiding clients in carrying out crimes and frauds has been in the news lately, in connection with the quandary that lawyers find themselves in when attempting to help clients in the marijuana industry — whose conduct may be legal under state law, while remaining illegal under federal law. (We’ve blogged about it previously, here and here. ) In this environment, it is useful to consider just what constitutes assisting a client’s crime or fraud, as the Ohio Supreme Court did last week in disbarring a lawyer who helped a divorce client hide assets from her spouse.…

It’s common for law students to clerk for a couple different firms during their law-school years. When a student law clerk you hire has worked for a firm representing a party adverse to your client, what happens? Is the student disqualified from working on your matter? Is your whole firm disqualified? Can you screen the clerk and solve the problem? Two recent ethics opinions out of Texas and Ohio clarify the rules.

The smoke might eventually clear for Ohio lawyers who hope to help clients engage in the medical marijuana industry after it becomes legal in the state on September 8. On August 17, the state supreme court said that it had “directed its staff to prepare a draft amendment to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct that would clarify the services attorneys can offer clients seeking to comply with the state’s new medical marijuana law.” The announcement follows the ruling 12 days earlier by the Board of Professional Conduct that Ohio lawyers can’t provide any legal services to help clients in connection with a medical marijuana enterprise.

On Tuesday, the ABA House of Delegates amended the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to add a provision barring harassment or discrimination in all conduct related to a lawyer’s practice of law. After months of debate, comment and revision, the revised Resolution 109 passed on a voice vote, without dissenting comment from the floor. The version adopted reflects an amendment introduced last month, which lowered the bar for a finding of misconduct from strict liability to a “knows or should know” standard.…

The opening brief has been filed in a Fourth Circuit appeal that’s sure to be closely watched by the 100,000 members of the D.C. bar, as well as others. A key issue in Moskowitz v. Jacobson Holman PLLC is whether a law firm partnership agreement can reduce a partner’s equity payout if the partner walks out the door with clients. The district court said that the provision violates ethics rules, and is therefore unenforceable as against public policy.…

Closely parsing the language in an arbitration clause, the California state court of appeals recently reversed an order compelling arbitration of a dispute between a lawyer and his client-turned-business-partner. The lawyer must now defend against a $1.5 million claim based on malpractice and breach of the operating agreement that the lawyer had drafted in connection with his real estate venture with the former client. With arbitration provisions becoming a common feature of lawyer-client retainer agreements, this ruling is worth attention.…

Since it debuted in the U.S. a couple weeks ago, Pokémon Go has become a nationwide phenomenon. If you’re like I was, you may need a primer in order to understand what the hoopla is about. The game was launched by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company for smartphones. It features the longtime videogame franchise that involves capturing and “training” phantasmagorical creatures called Pokémon. And yes, there’s an ethics issue for you to think about.…

Attorney-client privilege covers ethics advice that lawyers get from their law firm’s general counsel, and the communications do not need to be disclosed to the client, said a unanimous five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division last week, in a closely-watched case. In Shock v. Shnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, the court ruled that the law firm was the “real client” in getting the advice from the GC, and held that the fiduciary exception didn’t apply.…