A few weeks ago, we wrote about the Ohio bar applicant with mega-school debt, and the recommendation of the state character and fitness board that she not be permitted to take the bar exam until 2024 based in part on her “neglect of financial responsibilities.”
Less than six weeks after hearing oral argument, a divided
A prominent Chinese dissident may proceed with his malpractice case against a law firm based on allegations that the firm failed adequately to protect his personal data from hackers, a Washington, D.C. district court said in an
An Ohio law school grad might not be allowed to sit for this year’s bar exam partly because she and her husband have a combined educational debt of almost $900,000 that they are unlikely ever to pay off.
Most lawyers have a general understanding of the “no-contact rule” — namely that under state versions of
Have you recently made a career move — maybe going in-house? Or shifting from a firm to government work? When you’re dealing with a work-life change, watch out for details that can too-easily fall through the cracks — like your license to practice, the date it expires, and whether you are in line to get
“Attorneys carry substantial responsibility, but it is folly to suggest it is limitless,” said the New Jersey Supreme Court last week. The court ruled that when the Fox Rothschild firm complied with its client’s disbursement instructions it did not thereby convert funds that a non-client had wired to the firm’s trust account — even though,
As 2020 kicks off, let’s take a look back at situations that got lawyers into ethical hot water last year. They each point to some ways you can stay out of trouble this year.
If you’re making a New Year’s resolution to improve your time-keeping and billing habits, you can draw inspiration from this cautionary tale, detailing how a Massachusetts lawyer, a partner at a large firm, has been suspended for six months for overbilling clients at her prior firm.
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
Last month, the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics issued