Nearly four years later… and I’m making that James Bond reference this time.

So, if any of you are still around these parts after I’ve gone some 12 days without writing any content, then you are in for me dredging someone up that I previously wrote about on June 30, 2015. An attorney named Rodger Moore.

Rodger Moore. And he was suspended for the practice of law for conduct that involved stealing adult beverages (wine) and also stealing the oil of olives. You know… olives… the garnish that goes in a martini.

I guess back in the halcyon days of this venture I considered myself above making a James Bond reference? Well, I’m four years older now and don’t consider myself above much of anything I guess. So…here goes.

Rodger Moore is no longer licensed to bill.

Also, Roger Moore was not the best Bond, but this Rodger Moore was not the best lawyer.

The need for just a bit of “dry” humor for today’s post is in order because nothing else about the story is humorous. And, in fact, while not doing so in a fashion that is at all effective for his case, Mr. Moore raises a topic in the press that is not deserving of being milked for humor of any sort — the problem of depression in our profession.

You (like me) may have seen the story in The ABA Journal about the fact that after previously being suspended for failure to disclose certain pieces of his criminal past, Mr. Moore has now been disbarred for trying to charge over $10,000 to a client he had promised to represent for free. If you’d care to read the full Ohio opinion disbarring him from practice, you can get it here.

In short-form version, a woman who qualified for legal aid representation going through a divorce agreed to switch lawyers to Moore, after Moore sent an email saying he would represent her for free. Shortly thereafter, he sent her an invoice for $9,500 but then told her she didn’t have to pay that but that he was going to seek to have the court award his fee against her husband. He never did that but did send her an $11,000 promissory note and seek to have her sign that. Eventually, he had to bow out of her case because of his suspension from practice (but not until first trying to appear in court for her the day after he was suspended). He then got an attorney he shared office space with to take over the representation. That lawyer confirmed to her that he was providing the services for free but, ultimately, filed a lawsuit against her, representing Mr. Moore’s firm, seeking to force her to pay pursuant to the promissory note.

Based on his past history, his failure to appear on his own behalf in the disciplinary case, and the fact that he tried at the eleventh-hour to proffer up his license to retire or resign from practice rather than being disciplined, the Ohio Supreme Court decided to permanently disbar him.

In a real plot twist, Mr. Moore has communicated extensively with The ABA Journal as their article reveals and shared with them a draft letter that he was thinking about sending to the Ohio Supreme Court to complain about how he was treated.

Now, I’m fortunate enough that I do not suffer from depression. As I’ve revealed before anxiety is my issue. There is no question that problems with depression are rampant in our profession and little doubt that mental health issues continue to be stigmatized, hidden, and not treated effectively when it comes to lawyers.

I don’t have the necessary clinical training to know the first thing about whether Mr. Moore’s narrative could be explained by depression but I do know that the opinion reveals that he continued to practice while suspended for a pretty significant period of time, represented himself, and that both of those facts likely played a role in his ultimate disbarment. Both of those facts are the kind of things that are also not inconsistent with side effects of depression.

Mr. Moore may not be a very good messenger for the underlying message of the continued need to preach about the awareness of mental health issues, and his claimed beef that the disciplinary process should take depression into account as a mitigating factor misses the mark because nearly all states do – through application of the ABA Standards for Lawyer Misconduct – take mental health issues into account.

But he is, albeit maybe just inadvertently, a good messenger for making an important, and hard, point. Those kinds of proceedings can only take such things into account if the lawyer is able to disclose them so that they can be considered. Mr. Moore pretty clearly didn’t disclose any issues with depression at the time of the proceedings themselves but, because of the nature of such things and, if he was representing himself, if he really was suffering from untreated depression he might not have been able to bring himself to do so.

Any lawyer interested in reading up on issues of attorney wellness can now find a variety of good resources online. Perhaps the most recent report issued by a state bar comes out of Virginia and you can read that one here if you are so inclined.

A lawsuit about a lawsuit that touches on everything about 2019?

If time capsules were still a thing (are they still a thing?), and someone wanted to capture issues facing the legal profession in 2019 for a time capsule to be buried… what sort of topics would you choose to include?

Outside of the legal dynamics at play in the political landscape of the nation (which I’m excluding for today just for purposes of sanity), a quick effort to sketch things out on scratch paper might find you listing:

  • Risks of the flow of information involving modern technology
  • Financial pressures placed on lawyers and law firms
  • Continuing difficulties in achieving and maintaining diversity in law firms
  • How #metoo and problems of power and sexual misconduct in the workplace play out in law firms.
  • The role of businesses other than law firms in the delivery of legal services and what that means for the profession.

I’m probably leaving something out, but those bullet points comprise a pretty good overview of the legal landscape, right? Surely, you couldn’t find one document that would touch all of that to throw into the time capsule?

Well, thanks to a new lawsuit filed in California in May about another lawsuit filed in New York in May, you can now fill your time capsule with just one complaint plus its Exhibit A.

You may already have read any of the stories about this lawsuit that have run at the ABA Journal or in Bloomberg Law or even this Harvard Law School and snark-centric one at Above the Law.

If you want to read the entirety of what would go in the time capsule, you can read the lawsuit filed by Pierce Bainbridge against Donald Lewis (which attaches the suit Lewis filed against Pierce Bainbridge as an exhibit) by downloading the PDF below.

The two documents combined span more than 110 pages, so here’s a summary.

Lewis joined Pierce Bainbridge as a partner in June of 2018 but ended up working there for only 4 or 5 months. He was terminated by the firm in November 2018. Both sides agree that during the five months he was there A LOT happened. They disagree pretty vehemently on exactly what though.

Lewis filed a lawsuit in New York on May 15, 2019 alleging that he was wrongly terminated as a retaliatory matter because Lewis had become aware of financial wrongdoing by Pierce Bainbridge involving misrepresentations about the value of cases to a third-party litigation funding company. Lewis’s lawsuit sought $65 million in total damages with $50 million of those being claimed punitive damages.

In support of his allegations against the firm and his claims that it is a toxic environment for those who work there, Lewis’s lawsuit publicly discloses a litany of internal Pierce Bainbridge communications including what would appear to be not just emails and text messages but some that are indicated as being from the firm’s use of the Slack messaging platform.

That same day, May 15, 2019, Pierce Bainbridge filed a lawsuit against Lewis in California alleging that pre-suit sharing of a draft of the lawsuit with certain people was actionable defamation by Lewis and that by seeking a multi-million settlement to avoid filing the lawsuit, Lewis was engaged in extortion. The firm’s lawsuit also pursues claims of negligent and intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage on the theory that Lewis’s effort to spread false information about the firm and its partners is an effort to damage the firm’s relationship with the third-party funding company and its clients and potential future clients.

Pierce Bainbridge contends that Lewis was the subject of credible allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and retaliation leveled against him by an employee of the law firm and that he attempted to obstruct the firm’s internal investigation of those allegations and was terminated on that basis. The firm’s lawsuit paints a portrait of a lateral hire alleged to have “immediately bec[ome] a corrosive presence” at the firm.

The firm alleges that on the same day Lewis was appointed to be an “assigning partner” a legal assistant made a report about an alleged event that would have occurred in June, fewer than 2 months after Lewis arrived, and that involves Lewis doing his best impression of what might happen if Louis C.K. and Matt Lauer were collaborators on a workplace project. In response to the allegations, the firm put Lewis on administrative leave and hired an outside law firm to investigate. While on leave, the firm alleges that Lewis sent an email to many at the firm airing his allegations (many of which apparently ended up the subject of his lawsuit). For that, the firm says they terminated his employment. The firm contends that their outside counsel concluded that the allegations against Lewis were credible.

Lewis, for his part in his lawsuit which spans 486 numbered paragraphs and was not filed pro se, takes issue with the propriety of that investigation as well and alleges that another partner at the firm was terminated after voicing an opinion that Lewis had gotten “a raw deal” from the firm

Using history as a guide, I’m prepared to declare that neither side will win this lawsuit. As a teaching tool, this lawsuit of course is an easy opportunity to repeat a point I’ve made many times before (here and elsewhere) about why so many law firm disputes and lawyer departures ultimately shouldn’t end up in litigation if there is any way to avoid it. The likelihood almost always is that no one “wins.” Everyone loses. And most prominently among the losers are the clients of the law firms/lawyers who don’t want to directly or even indirectly be harmed by the battle and, if they are at all risk averse, have to find themselves wondering whether they want anything to do with any of the players.

Overreaching on attorney fees. Plaintiff’s lawyers do it too.

There are always a variety of ways that examples of overreaching by attorneys on fees manage to push into the legal news. Recently, I wrote about one example involving hourly billing. More often than not, overreaching under that system is what makes the news.

It is not the only way that attorneys overreach on fees though. It is done by plaintiff’s lawyers as well.

Today’s post is about a very recent disciplinary decision issued by the Tennessee Supreme Court that publicly censures a lawyer for overreaching in connection with a contingent fee agreement. It is a case that confirms a point I have raised with a number of lawyers over the years but for which I never had ready authority – other than the rules themselves – to back up my point. Now, I’ve got this decision in Moore v. BPR to help convince folks who need convincing.

At its core, this case explains the limits on the ability of a plaintiff’s attorney to try to guard against what happens if their client rejects the attorney’s advice on whether to accept a settlement offer. There do, in fact, have to be limits on the ability to hedge against that because the ethics rules establish explicitly that the decision whether to settle a civil case or not is the client’s decision. RPC 1.2(a).

The rules clearly allow a lawyer who wishes to withdraw from representing a client over a disagreement about whether to settle a case to pursue withdrawal as long as they can justify it under one or more provisions of RPC 1.16(b). The law in Tennessee also permits such an attorney, if they do withdraw, to assert a lien as authorized by statute and pursuant to either the terms of their contract or, perhaps, depending on how things turn out for payment in the form of quantum meruit.

What the rules simply do not let a lawyer do is what happened in this new Tennessee Supreme Court case — include a term in the contract with the client that says that, if the client rejects a settlement that the lawyer advises should be accepted, then the lawyer becomes entitled – as a matter of contract – to a fee of x% of the settlement offer being rejected.

And, it does not matter what x equals in that last sentence. However, the nature of the overreach is certainly easier to spot when x happens to equal the original contingent fee percentage as was the case here.

As the Court explains, such a provision is not only antithetical to RPC 1.2(a) because of how much it undermines the right of the client as to settlement but it also takes a situation that is already difficult to balance with questions of conflicts and makes it untenable. Such a provision creates a severe conflict of interest for the lawyer at the moment the other side makes a settlement offer.

You can read the full opinion here. As a bonus, this case is also a primer for those who do disciplinary defense on the potential diminishing returns involved in pursuing appeals from public censures given that the rules prohibit a hearing panel who concludes that discipline should be imposed from imposing any discipline less serious than a public censure.

Thus, any attorney who seeks to appeal from a public censure imposed by a hearing panel has to understand that victory on appeal can only be obtained through a reversal in the nature of complete exoneration on the allegations of disciplinary violations. Far too many attorneys who represent themselves or who dabble in disciplinary defense often fail to understand that dynamic.

When you’re right, you’re right. Even when you’re Right.

I’ve written a bit in the past about the differences between unified bars, like what exists in North Carolina, and voluntary state bar associations such as what we have in Tennessee. (If you are uninterested in clicking on either of those links, as a refresher, the fundamental difference is that unified bars require that anyone who is licensed to practice in the state is a member of the state bar association.)

Among the biggest differences are the risks attendant for unified bars when they take various actions, including issuing ethics opinions, that they are treated as a government entity.

A case working its way through the Texas courts emphasizes another of those risks – the risk that engaging in efforts that bar leadership may believe to be in the best interest of society will be challenged by members of the mandatory bar association on First Amendment grounds.

Those risks have been made starker by the 2018 ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME.

Texas is a state with an unified bar and exactly such a lawsuit has been brought by Texas lawyers over the State Bar of Texas having programs involving diversity initiatives, access to justice, and programs seeking to prevent the deportation of immigrants. This matter came back into the legal news this week because the Attorney General of Texas has taken the somewhat unusual step of filing an amicus brief to side with the lawyers rather than with the government agency under fire.

You can read the Texas AG’s amicus brief here. But, in sum, the argument it makes is that the funding of speech and policies with which one disagrees using bar dues you are required to pay is coerced speech and, in light of what Janus has said about that, is a violation of the First Amendment.

Now, long-time readers of this space will know I’m not much of a fan of the current Texas Attorney General, and I have little doubt that this particular elected official would never have gotten involved in this fashion if the State Bar of Texas had been taking positions more in keeping with his personal politics. (For what it is worth, my own biases had me thinking that even before I read the part of the ABA Journal article pointing out that one of the plaintiffs to whom the AG is lending his support is a conservative group with a PAC that has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to past campaigns of the AG as well as his wife who happens to be a state senator).

But none of that changes the ultimate fact here that – because of the downsides attendant with the unified bar structure – he’s probably on the side that has the stronger arguments under the First Amendment issue as interpreted by Janus, at least as to the hot-button issue of immigration reform. (I think it is much tougher sledding to claim that fighting for access to justice is not a core regulatory purpose of a bar association sufficient to satisfy exacting First Amendment scrutiny.)

This latest development in the Texas litigation is also further proof, in my opinion, that the voluntary bar association model used by Tennessee is such a vastly better approach overall.

The TBA has repeatedly been able to take positions that I personally view are on the right side of history on a variety of issues with the only risk being that if it somehow gets viewed as too political by someone who disagrees with what it is advocating for then it might lose that lawyer as a member. I would imagine, most of the time, people don’t decide to quit because, on the whole, our voluntary bar association is a worthwhile thing to be part of.

For example, I’m not at all pleased that the TBA has invited (and I’m presuming is paying) Ken Starr to come speak at its upcoming annual convention. I think Starr ought to be treated as persona non grata for a variety of reasons. His most recent hypocrisy regarding attacks on the contents of the Mueller Report as “too detailed” is just the latest example. His utter failure to do the right thing in his time at Baylor is likely, by far, the biggest reason I wish the TBA wouldn’t want him to be any part of any of its programming.

I’m disappointed, but I’m not going to quit my membership over it. I will simply refuse to attend the convention as my small act of demonstrating my distaste with the decision.

But, most importantly, I could never sue about the fact that my dues are being used to fund such an invitation because we’re not an unified bar. If we were, then under Janus I might just have a claim and that’s not at all a good thing for bar associations to have to deal with.

Disbarrment time in D.C.?

Today’s a pretty big day for the future of democracy in the United States. Not just because it is Law Day, but because Law Day is being commemorated pretty ironically as the man with a very checkered past currently serving as the Attorney General of the United States testifies to Congress about why he didn’t mean the things he said to get the job and why, apparently, the current occupant of the White House should be free to obstruct justice if he is frustrated.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about a rare situation in which a corporation sued its former GC for what was essentially a legal malpractice claim and mentioned that, if nothing else, it served as a good reminder for lawyers who represent organizations that it is the entity, and not the CEO or its other officers, that are the client.

Many moons ago when I thought that Jeff Sessions might end up being the worst AG we were going to get under the current administration I wrote about the fact that the AG always needs to remember that the President is not the client.

The fact that we now have an AG who appears to be even worse is certainly proof of the small and meaningless nature of my voice, but also still more proof of how important the distinction between who is the client and who is not should be.

Of course, as an exchange with Atrios that I’ve had today on Twitter bears out, rampant lying by the person who is arguably the most prominent lawyer in the nation is – in addition to being an existential threat to democracy in this instance – not a good look for our profession as a whole.

So, happy Law Day, I guess.

Friday follow up: undo the good and just leave the bad.

So, not quite six weeks ago, I wrote about a development from Tennessee that was something of a mixed bag.

Our Board of Professional Responsibility put out a proposed Formal Ethics Opinion for public comment that, in my opinion, was not a good opinion fraught with quite a number of significant flaws. (If you missed that post, you can check it out here.)

The substance of the draft was the bad part of the bag. But, for the first time under a new policy, the Board actually put a draft opinion out publicly for comment prior to formally adopting it. That, of course, was the good stuff in the bag.

Presumably, the Board’s rationale for putting the draft FEO out for comment was to give itself an opportunity to receive feedback before making a final decision about whether to issue the opinion as-is or at all or in some revised form. As the prior post indicated, the deadline for the submission of public comments was April 10.

Cut to earlier this week on April 23. That was the date that the Board put out the Spring 2019 edition of Board Notes. It is a semi-annual publication which is a collection of a lot of things, including reports on discipline, statistics about the handling and processing of cases, articles about rule changes or other items of interest, and occasionally formal ethics opinions that have been adopted since the prior issue of Board Notes.

But while Board Notes is a valuable resource, it is something that most folks only receive by way of an email and that a significant number of people pay no attention to whatsoever. (So, in a lot of ways, it is like this blog, except for the receiving it by email part.)

Without any fanfare or explanation, Formal Ethics Opinion 2019-F-167 was included in Board Notes. That was how Tennessee lawyers had the chance to first learn that the draft FEO put out for public comment had now been adopted. (Actually, if you received but have deleted the email, or if as is pretty statistically likely you are not a Tennessee lawyer, you can always go here at the Board’s website to read issues of Board Notes.)

If you are a diligent reader of all of the links, you will see that Formal Ethics Opinion 2019-F-167 has been adopted without change from its draft form.

Now, perhaps the Board received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the bar on the draft opinion and so felt confident that it got it right. Or maybe it received very little feedback about the draft opinion and decided it probably got it right and no one really cared either way.

At this point, it is impossible to know because there is nowhere on the BPR website or anywhere else that the bar (or the public) can go to presently to see what public comments were received about the opinion.

I happen to know that the Board received at least one comment – a negative one – and that it came from lawyers who actually do focus their practice on defending products liability cases because they shared a copy of the comment they sent in with me. The substance of their concerns made me feel a lot better about the thoughts I shared because they were able to more cogently point out the nature of the evidence that actually does matter in a products liability case. (They also happened to be lawyers who practice in other offices of my law firm, which I mention for the purposes of transparency.)

Perhaps, ultimately, the Board will make the comments received on the draft FEO publicly available somewhere. I hope so. Otherwise, if there won’t be transparency in terms of the bar’s reaction to proposed opinions, then there really isn’t much positive about even putting them out for comment in the first place.

In fact, there is real institutional downside for the Board in leaving members of the bar wondering whether the Board does not actually care about evaluating the feedback it receives on its proposed opinions.

If the Board isn’t going to make the comments it receives available for the bar to read, then it likely should not go to the trouble of putting drafts out for comment in the first place.

If the Board simply intends to plow forward with draft opinions regardless of perceived flaws, then it definitely should just scrap the whole endeavor.

Lawyers engaging in criminal conduct. Big love for immunity in Texas.

Let me offer a word or two or probably 1,000 about two recent items of interest having the issue of lawyers involved in crimes as their common thread. One comes from the Fifth Circuit and the other comes from an ABA Journal article about a situation in Utah.

First, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Troice v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP handed down on April 17, 2019. That case is one of many pieces of litigation involving the Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme. Specifically, this case involved a potential class action involved claims against Greenberg Traurig under a vicarious liability theory alleging that an attorney at Greenberg Traurig conspired with Stanford to further his scheme.

I am a big believer that the scope of immunity for civil liability to third parties for lawyers in connection with their acts in the representation of clients should be very broad. The most widely known version of this kind of immunity for lawyers is often referred to as the litigation privilege.

A readily-understandable example of which is this: a lawyer is representing a client and files a lawsuit for the client against a company alleging that the company’s products are defective and unsafe, according to the litigation privilege as a form of immunity, the company shouldn’t be able to sue the lawyer for defamation over those allegations.

As a proponent for this immunity to be broad in scope, I was not surprised to see the Fifth Circuit rule that Texas law would provide immunity even with respect to matters outside of litigation as long as they occurred within the scope of the representation of a client. What I was initially puzzled by, however, was the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that a lawyer could even be immune from civil liability to a third party for criminal conduct.

My immediate reaction flowed from thinking about the fact that the ethics rules [RPC 1.2(d)] specifically delineate that “[a] lawyer shall not … assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal.” Thus, there might be a logical basis for arguing that a lawyer using her representation to assist a client in committing a crime should not be treated as acting within the scope of a representation for purposes of civil immunity but would be treated as something outside of the scope of a legitimate representation.

Of course, the problem with that logic is how I had to insert “legitimate” in as a modifier for “representation.” Such an approach would raise questions about an array of other ways that a lawyer might violate the ethics rules during representation of a client and whether those acts should also trigger a loss of immunity from liability to third parties.

Although the opinion did not really get into any discussion of ethics rules, the Fifth Circuit was confronted by a similar argument from the plaintiffs — that criminal conduct by a lawyer is necessarily outside the scope of normal representation:

The plaintiffs also argue “attorneys are not immune from suit when they engage in criminal conduct.” Their contention is not that criminal conduct is an exception to the general rule immunizing behavior in the scope of representation but rather that criminal acts are categorically never within” that scope.

The Fifth Circuit, applying and interpreting/predicting Texas law, walked through how the Texas courts look at the issue not based on the nature of the attorney’s alleged conduct (i.e. criminal or not) but on the type of conduct (i.e. does it look like something that amounts to legal services to a client or not). Given that fact, it was easy for the Fifth Circuit to say that even alleged criminal conduct by a lawyer can be in the scope of a representation for purposes of evaluating civil immunity.

The prospect of civil immunity even for allegedly criminal conduct, however, likely does not change the fact such conduct is sufficiently dis-incentivized in other respects.

It can still subject the lawyer to potential criminal liability. And, of course, lawyers also still face the risk of professional discipline for most criminal behavior.

Most, but not all.

Which brings us to the Utah story and whether or not lawyers should face discipline for criminal conduct, if the criminal conduct in question involves polygamy. Utah apparently has a criminal statute that makes involvement in a polygamous relationship subject to as much as fifteen years in prison. The short ABA Journal piece discusses the background – a complaint has been brought by a former member of something called the Davis County Cooperative Society where polygamy is pervasive headed up by a lawyer leader — and stressing that Utah’s relevant ethics rule – like most – only addresses criminal conduct that “reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness” as a lawyer.

In most instances, one would think that an attorney would have a hard time pulling off a polygamous relationship without engaging in some acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation but perhaps not here. Given the lawyer’s role as a leader of the Davis County Cooperative Society it sounds like the conduct is occurring out in the open so that deception is not part of the picture. Thus, the only way for RPC 8.4 to come into play would be for someone to try to argue that polygamy is a crime that reflects adversely on fitness as a lawyer.

As there are far too many jokes that could be made with that set up, I’ll refrain and, instead, focus on the original point about civil immunity. If Utah’s approach, was the same as the Fifth Circuit said Texas’s was, then it should mean that a lawyer could have potential civil liability to a third party for a polygamous relationship itself but a lawyer who, for example, represents clients in drafting up contracts related to a polygamous relationship, should be entitled to immunity.

Rarer than rare

I could try to open this post with references to song lyrics from either Toad the Wet Sprocket or Arctic Monkeys, but, either way, I’d likely lose most of you from the jump. (I could also try to claim knowledge of the Glenn Miller song that uses the exact phrase but while I may look it I’m just not old enough to know that reference.)

So, instead, we’ll go straight into the situation referenced by the title of the post. I’ve written in the past about the rare nature of instances of departures from law firms actually resulting in litigation and the rare nature of law firms suing other law firms over advertising practices. But what we discuss today is much rarer than either of those things, a corporation filing suit against its former general counsel for what is the equivalent of a claim for legal malpractice .

In the last few weeks there has been discussion in the legal press of a $70 million lawsuit filed by Hertz against three of its former high-level executives. One of those three defendants is Hertz’s former General Counsel. (He was also an EVP and Secretary but the lawsuit focuses only on his status as General Counsel so we shall do the same.)

So, what’s the deal? Well, Hertz has had some trouble over the years with the SEC where it ended up having to restate its financials for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. The restatement filing was made with the SEC in 2015 and amounted to a $231 million reduction in Hertz’s net income. The restatement was attributed to “material weaknesses” in Hertz’s internal controls which the lawsuit is claiming were either caused or made worse by the mismanagement of the company by the three defendants being sued, including the former General Counsel.

If you want to read a good summary treatment of the suit, you can grab one here or here. It certainly details a story of significant corporate turmoil and upheaval and paints a very unflattering picture of the former CEO (who is one of the three named defendants) and his management style. If you are interested in reading the full lawsuit filed in federal court in New Jersey, you can get it here.

If you want to get a clear flavor of the kinds of allegations involved without getting fully into the weeds – and in particular the almost “ride-along” nature of the case against the General Counsel – paragraph 6 of the Complaint is a pretty good landing point. (Frissora was the CEO; Douglas was the CFO; and Zimmerman is the General Counsel in question.)

Upon learning that Hertz might miss a financial target, Frissora would demand mandatory team-wide calls and continuous weekend meetings, and would repeatedly berate subordinates who did not come up with a sufficient number of “paradigm-busting” accounting strategies to fill the gaps between Hertz’s actual and expected performance, accusing them of not being team players if they would not play his game. Defendants Douglas and Zimmerman – Frissora’s right-hand subordinates who were entrusted with effectuating his orders — failed to stop, effectively counterbalance, or otherwise offset or report to Hertz’s board of directors . . . Frissora’s inappropriately forceful tone, in breach of their duties owed to Hertz.

The suit seeks to claw-back somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 million in incentive-based payments that were made to the three including significant amounts of money paid to each on their way out the door after they resigned and the financial problems had become known – payments that the lawsuit itself tags with the shorthand reference “Golden Parachutes.”

Paragraph 21 of the Complaint goes into the most details in terms of the allegations against the General Counsel. It does not, of course, reference the ethical duties that a lawyer to an organizational entity owed under RPC 1.13 but, at its heart, the dynamic that is discussed in that rule in most jurisdictions is exactly what this lawsuit is all about: the allegation that if Zimmerman wasn’t able to stop Frissora from engaging in wrongdoing he should have informed the Board of Directors of Hertz about what was going on.

Based on not much more than a very surface-level read, it is an extremely interesting story where I’d love to learn what the other side of it looks like. Given how rare this kind of lawsuit is, it would not be at all surprising for it to get resolved in a way that does not end up shedding light on whether the former general counsel’s story is one where he’s joined at the hip with the former CEO in a belief that everyone was trying to do the best thing for Hertz or if his story is one in which he wasn’t comfortable with what was going on but didn’t think he could rock any boats or somewhere in between. (One note of curiosity about the litigation and the dynamic, one of the two articles linked above goes into details about how the defendants in the New Jersey federal court suit have become plaintiffs in a suit filed in Delaware to seek to make Hertz pay them for the costs incurred in defending the suit Hertz has brought.)

At this point at least, and regardless of how any of it plays out further, the situation offers a ready highlight for lawyers who represent entities, and particularly in-house counsel, about how important it is to always remember that it is the entity that is the client – and not any particular officer – and how big the stakes can be when it comes to trying to figure out whether the person giving you instructions is acting in the best interest of that entity or not.

Things you might not know (for a Thursday)

Am I about to write about this just for the click-bait possibilities? Probably.

Does that make the underlying topic less worth discussing? I hope not.

So there used to be a time when people could become lawyers without ever having to go to law school. You could effectively apprentice in the law where you could work for and study with (through working for mostly) a practicing lawyer and then be able to sit for a bar examination and, if you passed, then become licensed to practice.

At some level, that sort of model makes some sense if you believe the ultimate goal of a legal education is for someone to be able to actually practice law at the end of their professional education.

In fact, many voices of criticism of modern law school education tend to focus on how disconnected it can be from teaching people how to actually practice law.

The flip side of course is that law school does a very fine job of teaching people how to think like a lawyer — a skill that readily translates to the ability to practice a variety of kinds of law. Whereas the idea of apprenticing into the practice of law may be more limited in that if you apprentice for a probate litigator you likely will learn how to be a good probate litigator but you might not learn that in a way that would translate into practicing some other type of law.

What you might not know (and I certainly didn’t before today) is that you can still apprentice into the law in California. I learned this from today’s news over at Above the Law that Kim Kardashian (you may have heard of her) is pursuing that path to becoming a California lawyer.

Mulling all of that over has returned me to a thought that I kick around from time-to-time from admittedly a different perspective but that is certainly related.

If successfully attending law school and passing the bar exam actually do each have real meaning such that both have to be required to practice law, then why shouldn’t (other than character and fitness requirements as an additional piece of the puzzle) the logical consequence of that be that anyone who has managed to do that to be able to practice law in at least one state, then be considered sufficiently qualified to be able to then at least apply to be admitted in any other state without having to jump through lots of procedural hoops? (For today, I’m not even going to go the step further that might also be a legitimate question if we really want to get contemplative.)

Quite a lot of states are pretty flexible in their procedures for letting folks already licensed in one jurisdiction “waive in” to get a license in that jurisdictions without having to take another bar exam. Some states are still pretty parochial in their approach – particularly states that have a good bit of beach front property.

Two For Tuesday For Tennessee

From time to time I feel a real obligation to write about things that are primarily (if not exclusively) only of interest to Tennessee lawyers. Today is one of those days so apologies in advance if this is not your cup of tea. (On the upside for you, this will be relatively short so you might be able to justify still reading it.)

There have been two significant developments this week in Tennessee involving rule changes (not ethics rule changes) but rule changes important to the practice of law in Tennessee. One is the adoption of a new Tennessee Supreme Court Rule authorizing collaborative law family law practice. The other is a further structural and substantive set of changes to the rule that governs the admission of lawyers in Tennessee – Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 7.

The revisions to Rule 7 address a number of non-substantive changes including architectural reworking of the structure and ordering of portions of the rule but also address some substantive issues as well. You can read the entirety of the order implementing the revisions (which includes both a clean and a red-lined copy of the revised Rule 7) here.

Perhaps the most important substantive change to Rule 7 is the expansion of a registration procedure (currently available to in-house counsel admitted in another U.S. jurisdiction but working in Tennessee) to foreign legal counsel employed as a lawyer by an organization as well. In connection with that development, a 180-day amnesty period for foreign legal counsel presently practicing in Tennessee is on offer (as occurred in the past with the in-house counsel provisions).

Second, while the provisions addressing the right to practice pending admission have been explicitly tweaked to make clear that someone can apply and obtain that authority whether seeking admission by comity or by sitting for the bar exam (or, now that TN has embraced the UBE, submitting a score on the UBE from another jurisdiction), the rule has also been amended to make plain that a disciplinary complaint filed against someone practicing pursuant to the practice pending admission rule is also a disciplinary complaint against the attorney who is on record as being their supervising attorney (as is also the case with qualified law students permitted to engage in limited practice in compliance with the rules.

The adoption of a new rule permitting collaborative family law practice in Tennessee has been in the works since 2017 but was finally implemented this week and takes effect immediately. You can read the entirety of new Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 53 here.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of collaborative family law practice (and I suspect there are many of you), a review of the rule is worth your time to get a flavor for the dynamic. One of the most important pieces is the notion that lawyers engaged in this kind of representation are prohibited in almost all circumstances from engaging in any litigation proceedings on behalf of the party they are representing related to the issue for which the collaboration is focused. (Which is a bit of weird end around on what would otherwise likely be viewed as a restriction on the right to practice in violation of our RPC 5.6.) In terms of impact on lawyer ethics, the other piece of the rule that has a direct impact is the piece that provides relief from the imputation of a collaborative lawyer’s conflicts to other lawyers in their firm in instances where the representation involves a person of “low income.” Specifically:

Section 10. Exception from Disqualification for Representation of Low-Income Parties.

After a collaborative family law proceeding concludes, another lawyer in a law firm with which a collaborative lawyer disqualified under Section 9, Subsection (a), is associated may represent a party without a fee in the collaborative family law matter or a matter related to the collaborative family law matter if:

(a) the party has an annual income that qualifies the party for free legal representation under the criteria established by the law firm for free legal representation;

(b) the collaborative family law participation agreement authorizes that representation; and

(c) the collaborative lawyer is isolated from any participation in the collaborative family law matter through procedures with the law firm that are reasonably calculated to isolate the collaborative lawyer from such participation as set out in Tenn. Sup. Ct. Rule 8, RPC 1.10.