Apologies for the lack of content this week, been down with the flu since Monday afternoon.
Two short items by way of follow up today worth highlighting with a hope of resuming this blog’s normal, sub-par output next week.
First, word has come out that the former Florida Bar President made the subject of the disqualification motion in the TIKD litigation has now withdrawn from representing TIKD. You can read an update about that here.
Second, in complaining a week or so ago about the scope of Tennessee’s RPC 5.5(h) prohibition on employing suspended lawyers, I made reference to the fact that the rule could arguably apply even to a lawyer serving an administrative suspension. This month brings news of the relatively rare occurrence of a lawyer actually getting disciplined for continuing to practice while administratively suspended in Tennessee. You can read the release from our Board of Professional Responsibility about a lawyer getting publicly censured for continuing to go into the office for 7 business days while suspended for purely administrative reasons relating to not securing the necessary CLE requirements here. These materials don’t mention whether the lawyer actually even knew during those 7 business days of their administrative suspension. Presumably so or the public censure, which already sounds overly harsh, would be extremely harsh. Under RPC 5.5(h), if she were employed by other lawyers during those seven days, they could potentially face discipline as well.
Which is bananas.
So, stay safe.