Disclosing client information on Facebook has gotten yet another lawyer in trouble. A Massachusetts attorney was publicly reprimanded earlier this month for posting details of a guardianship case on the social media site, in violation of the Bay State’s version of Model Rule 1.6 (“Confidentiality of Information”). The Board imposed a public reprimand, rejecting an
Settlement agreements barring use of public info nixed in ethics opinion
After hard-fought proceedings, you’ve finally settled a contentious case on behalf of your client. The plaintiff’s lawyer has brought suit against your client before, and likely will again: the lawyer advertises and uses social media aggressively to locate claimants who have the same kind of issue with your client.
Your client asks, “Can’t we include
Watch those hypotheticals, says ABA in new opinion on blogs, tweets, “public commentary”
We’ve written before about the breadth of the duty of confidentiality we owe to our clients, and how it even extends to matters that you think are safe to discuss because they are of “public record.” (See here and here.) Now comes the ABA’s latest on the subject of lawyer “public commentary” — Formal
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.
Lawyers can’t necessarily disclose former client info, even if it’s “publicly available”
You’re chatting with your pals at the bar association cocktail hour, and talk turns to the indictment just handed down against a former city official. Someone says, “Hey, didn’t your firm used to represent her?” “Yes,” you reply, “and a couple years ago, I had a really interesting case involving her. Maybe I shouldn’t discuss
6 Key Ethics Rules for Litigators Using Social Media
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
7 Key Ethics Rules for Using Social Media in Business Development
Lawyers sometimes forget that, as the American Bar Association has noted, we cannot “take off the lawyer hat” to circumvent ethics rules. Likewise, lawyers are not any less susceptible to discipline for ethics violations just because their conduct takes place on social media instead of the courtroom. These are important rules to keep in
NC Business Court Revokes Pro Hac Vice Admission and Imposes One-Year Practice Ban on Out-of-State Lawyer
The North Carolina Business Court recently issued an order revoking the pro hac vice admission of a Florida attorney and barring him from practicing in North Carolina courts for an entire year. The order arose from a series of misrepresentations and failures to correct inaccuracies made in connection with pro hac vice applications, as well
Playing with Fire: Avoid Getting Burnt by the Unworthy Client
While perceptions and descriptions may vary, the term “unworthy client” generally includes dishonest clients whose lawyers get entangled in their client’s web of deceit. Even reputable law firms can easily become entangled with dubious clients if they aren’t paying close enough attention. Not surprisingly, lawyers and firms caught up in these situations are
Civility and Professionalism: Are we getting better?
For decades, commentators and practitioners have bemoaned the deteriorating level of collegiality in the practice of law. But at the same time, popular culture and advertising have glorified (and financially rewarded) lawyers with a pugilistic character. And research suggests that bullying can go on as much within a firm as between them. Do we have