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
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
The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (the “Committee”) recently issued its first opinion on generative AI and not a day too soon. While states such as Florida, California, West Virginia, and Kentucky, as well as the District of Columbia have issued generative AI guidance, most states have yet
Like it or not, artificial intelligence is not going away and it’s evolving—quickly. While AI talk has been brewing for quite some time, many of us assumed AI’s direct effect on our business was still years off. But over the last year the pace of development and use has accelerated exponentially and it is
Multijurisdictional practice can make any lawyer’s head spin, especially for lawyers licensed in multiple jurisdictions. The ABA Standing Committee of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, (the “Committee”) recently issued Formal Opinion 504, which breaks down the choice-of-law rules found in Model Rule 8.5.
Litigation
Model Rule 8.5(b)(1) provides that, for conduct in connection with
Maybe you were lucky and opposing counsel was able to delete the inadvertent email you sent her before she read what would have inevitably blown your whole case. But what about for those lawyers who were not so fortunate? Did you commit malpractice? Do you anticipate hearing from disciplinary counsel? Certain mistakes can be damaging
Here’s a newsflash: you can’t defend yourself against a client’s bad online review by revealing client confidential information, as the ABA Ethics Committee reminded us in an opinion last week.
We’ve recently reported on the Oklahoma lawyer who was disciplined for his rogue consultant’s conduct in connection with an online review; a New Jersey lawyer
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
As we’ve noted before (here and here), the ethical duty of confidentiality is broad, and can even cover publicly available information. Now comes a reminder that based on the confidentiality rule you should obtain consent before using your client’s name in marketing materials — and that some jurisdictions go even farther. For instance,
Everyone knows that we have an ethical duty of competence, and in most jurisdictions this includes a duty to be aware of the “benefits and risks” of relevant technology. Examples of possible technology issues affecting our practices: encryption (and cyber-security in general), cloud storage, e-mail handling, the internet of things — there