Sunday, November 30, 2014

California Upholds Internal Communication Law Firm Privilege

A decision issued last week by the California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Three holds

The question before us is whether the attorney-client privilege applies to intrafirm communications between attorneys concerning disputes with a current client, when that client later sues the firm for malpractice. We conclude that when an attorney representing a current client seeks legal advice from an in-house attorney concerning a dispute with the client, the attorney-client privilege may apply to their confidential communications. Adoption of the so-called "fiduciary" and "current client" exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is contrary to California law because California courts are not at liberty to create implied exceptions to the attorney-client privilege. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we hold that the exceptions to the attorney-client privilege embodied in Evidence Code sections 958 and 962 do not apply to the circumstances presented here. Accordingly, we grant in part the petition of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP and Dominique Shelton for a writ of mandate, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The court cites the Massachusetts and Georgia cases as well as the Chambliss law review article.

The client had retained the law firm to pursue an invasion of privacy claim against the Daily Mail. As the court noted

The relationship between [client] Mireskandari and the Firm was short lived and, for the most part, contentious.

The court rejected the suggestion that internal counsel and the client were "joint clients" of the firm

Shelton and Mireskandari were not joint clients for purposes of section 962. Shelton and Mireskandari did not retain the Firm "upon a matter of common interest." Mireskandari retained the Firm and Shelton to represent him in the Daily Mail case; Shelton consulted with in-house counsel not as a party to that action, but to obtain advice on how best to address Mireskandari's complaints about billing and his threats to hold the firm responsible for any damages he suffered. Mireskandari and Shelton were not co-parties; they did not employ the same attorney to oppose claims of an adversary or pursue a claim as joint plaintiffs; they were not represented by the same attorney in a business transaction.

The court vacated an order that had permitted discovery into the firm's internal communications.

Thank you to my former student Daniel Woofter for sending me the case. His article from the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics is cited in the opinion. (Mike Frisch)

November 30, 2014 in Hot Topics, Law Firms, Privilege | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Conviction Reversed; Prosecutor Knowingly Used Perjured Testimony

The Indiana Court of Appeals had reversed a burglary conviction based on its conclusion that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony.

 The case involved the robbery of a Dollar General in December 2012.

A video showed that the perpetrator was a white female.

An employee named Greenlee (a white female) came under suspicion and confessed that it was she in the video. She implicated Smith (her black male boyfriend) and another female as accomplices.

Greenlee entered a guilty plea and admitted under oath that she was the one in the video.

She was awaiting sentencing when she was called as a witness in Smith's trial and offered to testify that it was Smith in the video.

After an objection by defense counsel (who was aware of Greenlee's plea) and a recess, the trial judge allowed the testimony.

The judge found that Greenlee's plea and trial was inconsistent but not necessarily false. Greenlee explained that her plea testimony was false because she was trying to aid Smith.

The prosecution granted Greenlee immunity for any false statements at her plea.

The court found that the issue had been preserved and that the prosecution had knowingly used perjured testimony. The witness gave mutually exclusive accounts of the robbery under oath and there was a "high probability" that her trial testimony was false.

Further, the grant of immunity did not solve the perjury problem, only Greenlee's problem.

Notably, a police witness testified that the video showed that the perpetrator was a white female.

Thanks to Don Lundberg for sending the case to us. (Mike Frisch)

November 27, 2014 in Highlights from bepress and Law & Society Review, Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Ethics Journal Current Developments Issue Is Out

My favorite issue of the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics -our yearly compilation of student notes on current developments in ethics law -  has just hit the street.

This issue holds up well with the past editions and gives the reader excellent exposure to the hottest legal ethics issues that face 21st century members of the legal profession.

As co-faculty advisor (along with my colleague Professor Mitt Regan) to the journal, I am biased in its favor.

With that disclaimer, I highly recommend that all practitioners with an interest in ethics take a look.

Kudos to the journal staff for their hard work and dedication to this notable contribution to the profession. (Mike Frisch)

October 22, 2014 in Ethics, Hot Topics, Judicial Ethics and the Courts, Law & Society, Law Firms, Professional Responsibility | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, September 26, 2014

STAND And Deliver Legal Services

An unauthorized practice decision of the Ohio Supreme Court is described by Kathleen Maloney

A Lorain County non-lawyer and his corporation engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal advice to individuals facing criminal charges, according to an Ohio Supreme Court decision today.

The court directed King Ayettey Zubaidah and STAND, Inc., to stop practicing law and ordered them to pay a civil penalty of $20,000 for their involvement in four legal matters.

Zubaidah formed STAND (Striving Towards a New Day!) in 2008 after his experience with the justice system in the 1980s when he was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to five years probation. STAND’s mission was “to help change the unfair and partial treatment against minorities in the judicial system.”

In each of the four cases brought before the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), the defendant or a parent of the defendant asked for Zubaidah’s guidance during the criminal case and signed an agreement with STAND, which stated that the organization would assist them. No payment was required. Family members testified that Zubaidah did not claim to be an attorney and they knew he was not one.

In one matter, Isaiah Harris faced several charges in three different cases in 2008 involving the same victim. The court appointed a lawyer to represent him. Harris also signed an agreement with STAND.

The three cases were combined, and before Harris’ trial Zubaidah sent a letter to the judge indicating he had in-depth knowledge about the facts in the case and defending Harris’ actions.

In the midst of trial, Harris’ lawyer negotiated a plea deal for a four-year prison term. Zubaidah attended the trial, but his involvement was disputed. Harris’ lawyer claimed that Zubaidah advised Harris not to accept the deal. Harris rejected the offer and was later convicted and sentenced to 23 years, 6 months in prison.

In the other cases, Zubaidah sent letters to the judges asking for lower bonds, citing cases, and making legal arguments, though indicating that he was not an attorney.

In today’s per curiam opinion, the court noted that an individual who negotiates legal claims for another person and provides legal advice – even without charge and even when stating that he is not an attorney – is practicing law.

While a non-attorney who sends a character-reference letter for someone to a judge is not engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, the court stated that when a letter shifts to advocating specific legal positions for that person, the unauthorized practice of law occurs.

“[D]espite the laudable desire to seek reform in the criminal system, such a desire cannot be realized by legally advising and advocating on behalf of a criminal defendant without violating our prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law,” the opinion stated.

“Zubaidah’s actions extended beyond the permissible conduct of endorsing a person’s character, advocating a social issue generally, advancing personal interests, or providing nonlegal advice to a family member. Despite Zubaidah’s good intentions and intermittent disclaimers, his conduct shows a pattern of advocating legal positions on behalf of defendants and providing legal advice to those defendants, leading to serious consequences for the STAND clients who trusted him.”

The court pointed out that Zubaidah held himself out as “an advocate with legal expertise,” his agreements implied that he had specialized knowledge of the legal system, and his letters to judges “cited case law, raised legal issues, and asked for legal results.”

Adopting the UPL board’s recommendation, the court determined that a $5,000 penalty for each violation was reasonable.

The court’s majority included Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, and Judith L. French. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and William M. O’Neill concurred in part and dissented in part.

While Justices Pfeifer and O’Neill agree that Zubaidah engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, they would instead impose $1,000 for each violation, for a total penalty of $4,000.

2013-0072. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zubaidah, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4060.

(Mike Frisch)

September 26, 2014 in Current Affairs, Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, July 28, 2014

Interviewing With The Enemy

The District of Columbia Bar Legal Ethics Committee has a new opinion on an important real-world issue

When a lawyer is seeking employment with an entity or person adverse to his client, or with the adversary's lawyer, a conflict of interest may arise under Rule 1.7(b)(4) if the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be, or reasonably may be, adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests (for purposes of this Opinion, a lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests are collectively referred to as a “personal interest conflict”). Both subjective and objective tests must be applied to determine whether a personal interest conflict exists.

There is no “bright line” test for determining the point during the employment process when a personal interest conflict arises, and that point may vary. There are a number of factors to consider in determining whether a personal interest conflict exists, including whether the individual lawyer is materially and actively involved in representing the client and, if so, whether the lawyer’s interest in the prospective employer is targeted and specific, and/or has been communicated to, and reciprocated by, the prospective employer.
 
Where the prospective employer is affiliated with, but separate and distinct from, the entity adverse to the job-seeking lawyer's client, there may be no personal interest conflict in the first instance, because the adversary and the prospective employer may be separate entities for conflicts purposes.

If a personal interest conflict arises, there are three possible courses of action that may be available to the individual lawyer, each of which is subject to applicable requirements of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct: (a) disclosing to the client the existence and nature of the personal interest conflict and the possible adverse consequences of the lawyer's representation of the client and obtaining the client's informed consent to the representation; (b) withdrawing from the representation; or, (c) discontinuing seeking employment with the client's adversary or the adversary's lawyer until all pending matters relating to that potential new employment have been completed.

The personal interest conflict of an individual lawyer in a law firm, nonprofit, or corporate legal department is not imputed to the other lawyers in the law firm, nonprofit, or corporate legal department, so long as the personal interest conflict does not present a significant risk of adversely affecting the representation of the client by such other lawyers. The imputation rule does not apply to a government agency.

A subordinate lawyer who discusses a potential personal interest conflict with his supervisory lawyer, and acts in accordance with the supervisory lawyer's reasonable determination of whether the subordinate lawyer has a personal interest conflict and follows the supervisory lawyer's recommended course of action, will not be held professionally responsible even if it is subsequently determined that the supervisory lawyer's determination of whether there was a personal interest conflict, and/or the recommended course of action, were incorrect under the Rules.

I have found this issue to arise with some frequency. Guidance always is helpful. (Mike Frisch)

July 28, 2014 in Hot Topics, Law & Business, Law Firms | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, May 16, 2014

Finger Pointing And Yelling At Deposition Not Actionable

Good news for attorneys who conduct depositions.

The dismissal of a civil action against the Paul Hastings firm was affirmed by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department

The court properly dismissed the slander per se claim because the alleged defamatory statements were made during a judicial proceeding and may be considered pertinent to that proceeding...

The court properly dismissed the claim for civil assault. The physical conduct alleged by plaintiff, which amounts to finger pointing and generalized yelling in the context of a heated deposition, is inappropriate behavior, not to be condoned, but, without more, is not the type of menacing conduct that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful conduct needed to state an actionable claim of assault.

(Mike Frisch)

May 16, 2014 in Current Affairs, Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 20, 2013

"The Understatement Of the Year"

Two attorneys who had represented opposing parties in civil litigation ended up in litigation against each other.

The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the case, noting that "[t]o characterize Farmer and Mixter's relationship as acrimonious might be the understatement of the year. This court is sadly too familiar with the antics of these litigants from a dispute a few years ago..."

After the earlier case settled, Farmer "was so infuriated by Mixter's behavior that he sought sanctions against him."  Sanctions were imposed but reversed on appeal.

Farmer then sent twenty letters to various Maryland lawyers that alleged "unprofessional behavior" and sought information for a bar complaint. Mixter responded with a suit for defamation. Famer sent more letters to attorneys and filed a bar grievance against Mixter.

The court here affirmed the the dismissal of the Mixter suit against Farmer and a second attorney who allegedly conspired with him based on absolute judicial privilege grounds

Because [Attorney Grievance Commission] complaints are not published and lawyers' exposure is protected to a reasonable degree, we are unwilling to overlook the absolute privilege accorded to the AGC process simply because appellant feels aggrieved by the situation.

(Mike Frisch)

December 20, 2013 in Hot Topics, Privilege | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Motion To Withdraw Improperly Denied

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II has reversed and remanded a trial court order denying an attorney's motion to withdraw from the representation of the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case.

The clients, after an initial payment, had failed to satisfy obligations under the fee agreement to pay costs. The attorney had advanced significant sums for experts and depositions in the litigation.

Further representation would result in an unreasonable financial burden on [the attorney] and that with their dispute over fees and the resulting professional conflict, the [clients] rendered [the attorney's] representation unreasonably difficult...This is not one of those rare cases where [the attorney's] withdrawal would have harmed the efficiency of the judicial system, and we do not see that her withdrawal would have had a materially adverse effect on the [clients'] interests. Trial had not been set and there were no dispositive motions before the court when [the attorney] moved to withdraw.

The attorney had given notice of her intent to withdraw with ample time to secure new counsel. In fact, successor counsel was eventually retained.

That fact did not moot the withdrawal issue, according to the court.

The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw and remanded for entry of an order granting withdrawal as of June 15, 2012. (Mike Frisch)

October 23, 2013 in Billable Hours, Clients, Hot Topics, Law & Business | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

In-House Privilege Upheld By Massachusetts Court

A significant decision today by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

The issue and holding:

The issue presented on appeal is whether confidential communications between law firm attorneys and a law firm's in-house counsel concerning a malpractice claim asserted by a current client of the firm are protected from disclosure to the client by the attorney-client privilege.  We conclude that they are, provided that (1) the law firm has designated an attorney or attorneys within the firm to represent the firm as in-house counsel, (2) the in-house counsel has not performed any work on the client matter at issue or a substantially related matter, (3) the time spent by the attorneys in these communications with in-house counsel is not billed to a client, and (4) the communications are made in confidence and kept confidential.  Because these criteria were met in this case, we affirm the judge's order allowing the defendant law firm and its attorneys to invoke the attorney-client privilege to preserve the  confidentiality of these communications.

The law firm was retained by a commercial lender to investigate title and foreclose on property secured by what the lender thought was a first mortgage. A third party claimed a superior interest in the property.

A year later, the client (through outside counsel) sent the law firm a draft complaint alleging malpractice and breach of contract. 

The lawyers in the firm then consulted with the firm partner "designated to respond to ethical questions and risk management issues on behalf of [the firm]..."

The court underscored the importance of the ethics attorney function:

Where a law firm designates one or more attorneys to serve as its in-house counsel on ethical, regulatory, and risk management issues that are crucial to the firm's reputation and financial success, the attorney-client privilege serves the same purpose as it does for corporations or governmental entities: it guarantees the confidentiality necessary to ensure that the firm's partners, associates, and staff employees provide the information needed to obtain sound legal advice.  See Hertzog, Calamari & Gleason v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 850 F.Supp. 255, 255 (S.D.N.Y.1994) ("No principled reason appears for denying ... attorney-client privilege to a law partnership which elects to use a partner or associate as counsel of record in a litigated matter").  "[B]road protection of communications with law firm in-house counsel, including communication about the representation of a current client of the firm, ... would encourage firm members to seek early advice about their duties to clients and to correct mistakes or lapses, if possible, to alleviate harm." Chambliss, supra at 1724.  As the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently noted: 

"[I]ndividual lawyers who come to the realization that they have made some error in pursuing their client's legal matters should be encouraged to seek advice promptly about how to correct the error, and to make full disclosure to the attorney from whom that advice is sought about what was done or not done, so that the advice may stand some chance of allowing the mistake to be rectified before the client is irreparably damaged.  If such lawyers believe that these communications will eventually be revealed to the client in the context of a legal malpractice case, they will be much less likely to seek prompt advice from members of the same firm."


The court rejected a differing result when the situation involves a current, rather than former, client:

In law, as in architecture, form should follow function, and we prefer a formulation of the attorney-client privilege that encourages attorneys faced with the threat of legal action by a client to seek the legal advice of in-house ethics counsel before deciding whether they must withdraw from the representation to one that would encourage attorneys to withdraw or disclose a poorly understood potential conflict before seeking such advice.  The "current client" exception is a flawed interpretation of the rules of professional conduct that yields a dysfunctional result.  See N.Y. St. Bar Ass'n Comm. on  Prof. Ethics, Op. 789 (2005) ("We do not believe that the conflicts rules ... were intended to prohibit ethics consultation when it is most helpful:  during the client representation").  As such, we decline to adopt it in Massachusetts.

Briefs were submitted by several amicus curiae, including the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, the American Bar Association and the Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society, Inc.

The case is RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson LLP. One should be able to access the decision through this link.

Law firm ethics counsel --every firm of sufficient size needs one. (Mike Frisch)

July 10, 2013 in Current Affairs, Hot Topics, Privilege | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Son May Represent Father In Divorce Against His Mother

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that the son of a divorcing couple is not disqualified from representing his father in the litigation:

This original petition for a writ of mandamus raises two novel issues regarding attorney disqualification: should an attorney who represents one of his parents in a divorce action between both parents be disqualified either (1) because the attorney’s representation will constitute an appearance of impropriety or (2) because representing the parent will violate the concurrent-conflict-of-interest rule in Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.7?  Because appearance of impropriety is no longer recognized by the American Bar Association, and we have not recognized the appearance of impropriety as a basis for disqualifying counsel except in the limited circumstance of a public lawyer, we reject that conclusion when the alleged impropriety is based solely on a familial relationship with the attorney.  We also conclude that absent an ethical breach by the attorney that affects the fairness of the entire litigation or a proven confidential relationship between the nonclient parent and the attorney, the nonclient parent lacks standing to seek disqualification under RPC 1.7.

The court reversed the trial court, which had disqualified the son.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal noted that the representation might be contrary to common sense, if not legal ethics. (Mike Frisch)

August 11, 2012 in Clients, Hot Topics, Professional Responsibility | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Customary But Improper Legal Fee Charges

In a decision reversing the Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals, the Maryland Court of Appeals reached a decision with respect to legal fees charged in foreclosure sales:

We hold that , in the absence of specific authority in the contract of indebtedness or contained in statute or court rule, it is an impermissible abuse of discretion for trustees or the lenders who 'bid in' properties to include the demand for additional legal fees for the benefit of the Trustees in the advertisement of sale, or in any other way, in that it is contrary to the duty of trustees to maximize the proceeds of the sales, and, moreover, is not in conformance with state or local rules and... is against public policy.

The court noted that the practice of charging for such fees was, prior to its decision, the customary practice in Maryland foreclosure sales. (Mike Frisch)

January 24, 2012 in Billable Hours, Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Jury Questionnaires In Chandra Levy Murder Trial Must Be Disclosed

In the case involving the murder of Chandra Levy, the District of Columbia Court of Appealls has reversed and remanded a trial court order denying the Washington Post access to completed jury questionnaires.

The Post's request was made after the trial jury had been selected and the trial had begun. The government contended that the request was thus untimely.

On remand, the trial judge must start with a presumption that the completed questionnaires should be completely disclosed. If any answers touch on "deeply personal matters," the judge may provide the jurors with an opportunity to raise concerns in camera. The court may then enter specific individualized findings on the necessity of redaction that a capable of appellate review. (Mike Frisch)

January 19, 2012 in Hot Topics, Law & Society | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 22, 2011

Absolute Privilege For Internet Republication

The Maryland Court of Appeals held today that lawyers who publish to the press copies of their state complaint, make oral statements of like kind to the press, and republish pleadings on the internet are protected by an absolute privilege where (1) the reasonably contemplated proceeding satisfies the two-part test of a 1981 Maryland case; (2) the lawyers statements were made, "at least in part, in increase awareness of a proposed class action suit..." and (3) the "statements are related reasonably and rationally to the subject matter of the contemplated proceeding."

The plaintiff in this defamation litigation was not a named defendant  but had been identified as involved in a mortgage scam. (Mike Frisch)

April 22, 2011 in Hot Topics, Law & Society | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Hot Argument, Cold Court

In a case involving a plaintiff struck by a truck while in a crosswalk, the Utah Supreme Court held that defense counsel's "McDonald's coffee case" reference in closing argument warranted reversal:

Before we analyze this statement, it may be useful to explain the cultural context of the McDonald’s coffee case, more formally known as Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. Few cases have ever achieved as much notoriety among the general public of this country as the McDonald’s coffee case, fueled by its wide-ranging and repeated publicity in national and local news media. It has been mocked in extremely popular entertainment television, including The Tonight Show, The Late Show, and Seinfeld. It has been debated on talk shows, parodied in television commercials, mentioned in congressional debates, and is firmly lodged in the public consciousness. Mark B. Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World: Images, Issues and Idols in the Debate over Tort Reform, 26 CAP. U. L. REV. 701, 702–03 (1997). “What made the headlines and what is most commonly recalled by the general populace about the . . . case is the size of the verdict and the source of the injury—$2.9 million for spilled coffee.” Id. at 718. In U.S. popular culture, the case has come to symbolize greedy plaintiffs and lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits and win hugely excessive sums in a broken legal system.

The defendant admitted liability and the case was tried solely on damages. Defense counsel argued

Ladies and gentlemen, they want a lot of money for this. A lot of money. What’s been written on the board is called a per diem analysis. . . . How many days has it been since the accident? How many days for the rest of his life. And how much per day is that worth? That’s what’s been done here. That’s how we get verdicts like in the McDonald’s case with a cup of coffee.

The court found the argument improper and prejudical

Given the uniquely iconic nature of this case, the passion it has produced in the media, and the general misunderstanding of the totality of its facts and reasoning among the public, we find it hard to imagine a scenario where it would be proper for a party’s counsel to refer to it before a jury. Generally, as here, such a reference would seem to have the sole purpose of recalling the public outrage over isolated elements of the case—thus improperly appealing to a jury’s passions. It is not the jury’s job to make legal determinations, so no legal arguments from the case are relevant. The facts in the McDonald’s coffee case were not in evidence before this jury and were also utterly irrelevant. Indeed, the one attempt counsel made to make her reference seem relevant was a misrepresentation because the high punitive damages award in the McDonald’s coffee case had nothing to do with a per diem analysis. It is certainly unfair to require the other party to clarify all the misconceptions about this irrelevant case in the limited time allotted for closing argument. The great latitude provided in closing arguments regards reasonable inferences about evidence properly before the jury and does not extend to misrepresentations or efforts to appeal to a jury’s passions. Thus the reference to the McDonald’s coffee case in closing argument was improper.

Reversed. We have this one listed under Hot Topics. (Mike Frisch)

April 19, 2011 in Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Job Interview Ethics

What information concerning legal experience may a law graduate provide to a prospective employer without running afoul of confidentiality obligations? The North Carolina Bar has a January 21, 2010 formal opinion:

 

Providing Conflicts Information to Hiring Law Firm

Opinion rules that a hiring law firm may ask an incoming law school graduate to provide sufficient information as to his prior legal experience so that the hiring law firm can identify potential conflicts of interest.

 

After his second year of law school, a law student worked as a summer clerk for Law Firm A in Raleigh. One of the many projects Law Firm A assigned to the law student was legal research that was part of Law Firm A’s preparation of Lawsuit X.

 

After the law student graduated from law school, Law Firm B hired the now law graduate as an associate in its Chicago office. After the law graduate left Law Firm A, but before he joined Law Firm B, Law Firm A filed Lawsuit X. After Lawsuit X was filed, lawyers in the Charlotte office of Law Firm B were retained to defend the case.

 

The law graduate was unaware that Lawsuit X had been filed, or that Law Firm B had been retained to defend it. Before the law graduate joined Law Firm B, the firm asked him to provide information about the identity of the client matters he worked on at Law Firm A so that potential conflicts could be addressed. The law graduate contacted Law Firm A, which directed him not to disclose any information about matters he had worked on or clients for whom he had worked.

 

Law Firm A learned that law graduate was associated with Law Firm B in Chicago and moved to disqualify Law Firm B from Lawsuit X. Law Firm B established a screen immediately upon learning that law graduate had worked on Lawsuit X.


Inquiry #1:

 

Does law graduate have a conflict of interest that is imputed to the other lawyers in Law Firm B, disqualifying those lawyers from the representation of the defendant in Lawsuit X?


Opinion #1:

 

No. A law firm may hire a law graduate although the law firm is representing a client in a matter on which the law graduate previously worked for the opposing party while clerking at another law firm. Conflicts of interest created by work performed as a law clerk are not imputed to other members of a law firm under Rule 1.10. See Rule 1.10, cmt. [4]. Nevertheless, the law graduate should be screened from any participation in the matter. Id. (Note that Rule 1.10(c) allows a law firm to hire a lawyer who previously worked for the opposing party while employed at another law firm so long as the lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and written notice is given to any affected former client.)


Inquiry #2:

 

Will a Rule 1.0(1) screen of the law graduate from Lawsuit X implemented when Law Firm B learned of law graduate’s involvement in Lawsuit X be deemed “timely” and protect the lawyers of Law Firm B from disqualification?


Opinion #2:

 

In order to be effective, screening measures must be implemented as soon as practical after a law firm knows or reasonably should know that there is a need for screening. Rule 1.0, cmt. [10]. The purpose of screening is to assure the affected parties that confidential information known by the disqualified individual remains protected. Rule 1.0, cmt. [9]. If the screen is implemented prior to any participation by the law graduate in the matter and prior to the communication of any confidential information, the purpose for the screening procedure will have been effectuated.


Inquiry #3:

 

Is it improper for a law firm to ask law graduates or graduates not yet admitted to the practice of law, who have worked as law clerks, to identify client matters on which they worked as law clerks so that the hiring law firm can identify potential conflicts of interest?


Opinion #3:

 

No. When a new law school graduate, or any new lawyer, joins a firm, the hiring firm has an obligation to protect their clients against harm from conflicts of interest. See Rule 1.7. Comment [3] to Rule 1.7 provides that, to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved. However, the identity of the persons and issues involved in a matter are protected client information under Rule 1.6(a).

 

Rule 1.6(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall not reveal information acquired during the professional relationship with a client unless (1) the client gives informed consent; (2) the disclosure is impliedly authorized; or (3) one of the exceptions set out in Rule 1.6(b) applies. One of the exceptions set out in Rule 1.6(b) provides that a lawyer may reveal confidential information to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.6(b)(1).

 

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently opined that lawyers moving between firms should be permitted to disclose the persons and issues involved in a matter because the prohibition of such disclosure would preclude lawyers from conforming with the conflicts rules. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof'l Responsibility, Formal Op. 09-455 (2009). Similarly, it is appropriate for a law firm to ask an incoming law school graduate to provide sufficient information so that the hiring law firm can identify potential conflicts of interest.

 

However, as noted in the ABA opinion, “any disclosure of conflict information should be no greater than reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of detecting and resolving conflicts and must not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice a client or former client.” Id. In addition, a lawyer or law firm receiving conflict information may not reveal such information or use it for purposes other than detecting and resolving conflicts of interest.


Inquiry #4:

 

Is a law firm that a law graduate worked for permitted to disclose to a different law firm the identity of clients and matters that the law graduate worked on at the law firm so that the hiring firm can identify potential conflicts of interest?


Opinion #4:

 

Yes. See Opinion #3.

(Mike Frisch)

February 20, 2011 in Hot Topics, Interviewing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Extra! Extra!

The Winter 2011 edition of the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics has just hit the streets. Among the highlights are an analysis of the value of U.S. legal education in the global services market by Professor Carole Silver and an article on interference with law school clinics from Professors Robert Kuehn and Bridget McCormack.

The edition may be ordered through this link.

As co-faculty advisor (with Professor Mitt Regan) to the journal, my thanks to the editors for their fine contribution to the profession. (Mike Frisch)

February 9, 2011 in Current Affairs, Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Law Of Facebook

From the web page of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board:

Can a lawyer ethically get access to an opposing party’s Facebook page? We previously reported on a Philadelphia Bar Association opinion concluding that a lawyer may not, personally or through an agent, seek to “friend” an opposing party or witness without revealing.

But is there another way? A Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas has held that a party may be compelled through the discovery process to provide an opponent with access to his Facebook and MySpace accounts. In a decision in the case of McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., handed down September 9, 2010, President Judge John Henry Foradora of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County held that access to one’s social networking sites is not protected by any privilege, and that the plaintiff in a personal injury action could be compelled to reveal the usernames and passwords of his Facebook and MySpace accounts to counsel for the defendants (but not to the defendants themselves). The court looked closely at the privacy and disclosure policies of the sites in question, and concluded that users are on notice that information posted on them may be revealed to persons who have access to such information by process of law.

A New York trial court decision reached the same result by a very similar analysis.

It becomes increasingly obvious that lawyers should be counseling their clients on the use of Internet social media. More than ever, there are few secrets on the Internet.

(Mike Frisch)

December 1, 2010 in Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, November 15, 2010

Everything You Wanted To Know About Bar Admission, But Were Afraid To Ask...

...is the title of a presentation we do annually at Georgetown Law to provide students with information about selecting and passing a state bar as well as admission issues relating to character and fitness to practice. This web link should take the interested student to the one-hour talk.

Thanks to recent Georgetown graduates Sarah Black and Tim Daly for their insights.

While the video does not cover "everything," perhaps there are some useful tips. (Mike Frisch)

November 15, 2010 in Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 15, 2010

Something I Have Never Done Either; So Where's My New Car?

Headline of a news story I refuse to click on and read. Pastor gets car for not burning Quran

[Alan Childress]

October 15, 2010 in Hot Topics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

The story of the Louisiana internet/advertising rules and the federal court challenge

Posted by Alan Childress

One of my students doing a brief "independent study" on legal ethics wrote her paper on the 2009 Louisiana bar regulation of advertising, including internet and web advertising and blogging, and certain per-use fees and screening the bar requires.  The rules were modeled on the restrictive Florida rules.  The Louisiana act was challenged in federal district court late in '09 to a mixed result, as she details -- the judge nixing some procedures and fees while approving other parts of the act. 

It's an interesting story and she helpfully explains what this means in nearly 25 other states. The student is Brittany Buckley--now a proud Tulane grad--and she said I could share it on LPB. It is called Intersecting the First Amendment, Ethics, and the Internet:  Memo to Other States From the Louisiana Experience, and you can Download Buckley_ch 1 here.

This paper was turned into chapter one of the student book, called Hot Topics in the Legal Profession~2010, sold digitally on Amazon and Smashwords in nine formats including simple PDF (plus soon available for Nook and Apple--though iPad can read it now on its Kindle app).  You do not need to own a Kindle to read Kindle books, but anyway there is always pdf or rtf from Smashwords.  I blogged about the project here and included my Foreword as a download.  This chapter should give you another taste of what the overall book includes, such as friending judges and judicial elections; ancillary businesses of law firms under labor law, actual friendships of judges, settlement ethics, and the Caperton case and final result.  Get it while it  Iconis hot, and remember that sales benefit Tulane's nonprofit Public Interest Law Foundation.

The ethics book is featured on my publishing website at Quid Pro Books.  We seek submission of books or monographs on law, legal history, and law and society -- and of course legal ethics -- plus other academic subjects.  For information for you to submit your dissertation, here is my earlier post, but we also publish panel presentations, proceedings, and original manuscripts.  Information for prospective authors is here.

June 2, 2010 in Books, Hot Topics, Law & Business | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)