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.

A teachable moment to make your eyes water.

When you spend a lot of time consulting with and advising lawyers, finding teachable moments from examples of things that happen in real life are extremely helpful.

The world can be filled with teachable moments. On a non-ethics front, here is one: If you don’t pay attention to when a credit card has a new expiration date and update accordingly, you could end up having your domain briefly expire leaving you vulnerable to someone else potentially buying it.

On an ethics front, the importance of making sure you do what you can to make clear in an engagement letter who is and who is not your client, as well as what you are being hired to do versus other things someone might later try to claim were your responsibility is pretty high. As a result, paying attention to outside counsel guidelines or other documents that may come into your firm from a client that address those issues is extremely important.

A February 2019 case from the Federal Circuit stands as a very good teachable moment about how not paying attention to such things can lead to disqualification. If you practice in a law firm of any significant size, the full opinion is worth reading because it addresses not only the topics mentioned but also involves a fact pattern involving lateral movement that, ultimately, resulted in the disqualification proceedings coming to pass in the first place. Specifically, the lawyers who moved from another firm to Katten Muchin and brought with them their representation of a party adverse to a corporate parent of Bausch & Lomb in the first place were only ever informed that Katten Muchin was representing Bausch & Lomb.

The disqualification of the law firm of Katten Muchin in the lawsuit of Dr. Falk Pharma Gmbh et al. v. Generico, LLC et al. truly came about, however, because the firm did not push back on outside counsel guidelines it received that expanded the universe of what could constitute a conflict of interest (or, more realistically, didn’t pay attention at any true level that such was occurring).

The underlying moving parts of litigation are pretty detailed and intricate and involve patent litigation and trademark matters, part of which (I only mention to bring a satisfying end to the attempt at humor in my title) involved a dispute over the trademark MOISTURE EYES™.

If you want a more thorough understanding of the intellectual property issues in play in the various proceedings, you can get that over at Mike McCabe’s blog here.

For our purposes today, w/r/t the teachable moments, the following excerpts from the opinion ought to be able to drive home the importance of knowing what is in engagement letters that come from clients rather than emanate from your firm and knowing the details of any outside counsel guidelines being incorporated into any engagement letter:

The motions to disqualify stem from Katten’s representation of Bausch & Lomb Inc. … a corporate affiliate of Valeant-CA and Salix, in a trademark litigation and its concurrent representation of Mylan, adverse to movants, in the pending appeals. Specifically, Katten signed an engagement letter with Bausch & Lomb that broadly defined Katten’s client as any Valeant entity. Attorneys [Mukerjee and Soderstrom] represented Mylan during various stages of [these proceedings] first, as attorney from Alston & Bird LLP, but later, as attorneys from Katten. The parties agree that Mukerjee and Soderstrom moved to Katten as of May 3, 2018.

[snip]

In the course of representing Bausch & Lomb, Katten signed a general engagement letter “governing the overall relationship between [Katten] and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc…. This engagement letter incorporates by reference Valeant’s Outside Counsel Guidelines (“OC Guidelines…”

[snip]

The OC Guidelines also specify that “Valeant expects a significant degree of loyalty from its key external firms,” defined as “firms with 12 month billings exceeding one million dollars.” These key firms should “not represent any party in any matters where such party’s interests conflict with the interests of any Valeant entity.”

[snip]

On May 3, 2018, Mylan notified the district court that Mukerjee and Soderstrom had left Alston & Bird to join Katten. On May 25, 2018, Valeant-CA filed a motion to disqualify Katten in the district court action.

[snip]

Because the engagement letter creates an ongoing attorney-client relationship between the law firm, Katten, and its organizational clients, Valeant-CA and Salix, Katten’s representation of Mylan adverse to movants in Valeant II gives rise to a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7.

[snip]

Finally, we conclude that Katten’s erection of an ethical wall is insufficient to resolve its violation of Rule 1.7. Katten claims that this wall cordons off Mukerjee and Soderstrom from Katten attorneys who have worked for matters for Bausch & Lomb, Valeant-CA, or affiliates in the 18 months preceding May 7, 2018. But this wall does nothing to address concerns stemming from Katten’s violation because it was created after Mukerjee and Soderstrom joined Katten, it applies only partially to work conducted within 18 months before May 7, 2018, and Katten never previously informed movants of any potential conflict.

Now, in fairness, even without the engagement letter terms and the OC Guidelines, the outcome may have been the same because, as the opinion explains, the corporate entities involved here were so interrelated in terms of common infrastructure and shared legal departments, and financial interdependence as to be treated as amounting to corporate affiliates still subject to treatment as clients under conflict of interest rules. But that is another teachable moment issue for a different day.

A recipe for ethical lawyering?

Now that the Ethics Roadshow is complete in all of the cities where it was staged, I want to repackage the main idea from this year into a post and make a similar ask of my readers that I made of the attendees as to feedback on the point.

The title of the Roadshow this past year was “Back to Basics: Sailing the Five Cs of Ethical Lawyering,” but the main ultimate question or conceit when boiled down was whether the 5 Cs I had identified could provide not only a basic road map for being an ethical lawyer no matter the nature or setting of your practice but could also provide the ingredients of a recipe that can be used to justify the existence of those pieces of the ethics rules that are absolutely worth keeping moving forward in discussions about the future of legal ethics and lawyer regulation. 

The 5 Cs as put forth as the ingredients of the recipe were:

  • Be COMPETENT at what you do
  • Recognize and respect your obligations of CONFIDENTIALITY
  • COMMUNICATE appropriately with your clients (and others) both as to content and frequency
  • Employ CANDOR in all situations in your practice [If you absolutely cannot be 100% truthful, and can’t simply stay silent, then don’t be false.]
  • Avoid CONFLICTS for which you don’t have, or cannot get, consent.

Recognizing that some people might immediately think of another important “C,” avoiding commingling I then offered thoughts about how quite clearly rules about trust accounting could be readily reverse-engineered by combining ingredients.  I initially suggested that Competence + Candor + Communication could do the trick; some others suggested that particularly the requirement to avoid commingling could be described as Candor + Communication + Conflicts.

There are a number of different groups at work on trying to make progress on what the modern regulation of the practice of law should look like.  One of those is APRL’s Future of Lawyering Committee.

I’m fortunate to be a member of that committee and our mission is this:

[T]o explore the evolving nature of technology and its impact on the delivery of legal services and access to justice.  Our goal is to develop specific proposals for amending the legal ethics rules and reforming the lawyer regulatory process.

And so my ask of you is the same as my ask of attendees: Unless a rule is truly, and absolutely, required in order to protect consumers of legal services, shouldn’t the rules worth revisiting be the ones that are hard, if not impossible, to describe using a combination of ingredients from this recipe?

Asking for a conflict waiver is a step that is hard to take back.

Look, I understand too little too late
I realize there are things you say and do
You can never take back
But what would you be if you didn’t even try
You have to try
So after a lot of thought
I’d like to reconsider
Please
If it’s not too late
Make it a cheeseburger

– Lyle Lovett

Working though questions of conflicts of interest can certainly be challenging for lawyers.  The initial phases of figuring out whether a conflict exists are highly important.

From a loss prevention standpoint, you want to get it right as you certainly do not want to take something on that you shouldn’t because you had a conflict that you simply couldn’t even ask to be waived or for which you strongly suspected you’d never be able to get a waiver from those from whom a waiver would be needed.

It is also important to get right, however, so that you don’t treat something as a conflict that isn’t a conflict.  Once you start down the path of asking someone for a conflict waiver, you empower them to tell you “no” and you potentially reduce your choices about what to do in such event pretty severely.  It is not impossible to change course after unsuccessfully asking for a conflict waiver and begin to claim that the waiver wasn’t needed in the first place.  But it is certainly difficult.  Thus, it isn’t just the case that you don’t want to treat something as a conflict that isn’t a conflict; you also might want to think long and hard about treating something as a conflict if you intend to contend it isn’t a conflict.

An interesting story touching on just how difficult unwinding such a situation can be was written about by The American Lawyer earlier this week.  It involves an effort – seldom used (for reasons that ought to be a bit obvious) — to file a separate lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that something was not a conflict in the first place and an injunction to allow the lawyer to start working for a new firm.

You can read the full article here, but the short version is this: a Houston lawyer who was looking to change firms has been unable to do so because a corporate entity much in the news of late – USA Gymnastics — refused to provide a conflict waiver requested by the lawyer.  USA Gymnastics is a client of the lawyer’s former firm.  The firm to which the lawyer had hoped to move currently represents a number of individuals who have sued USA Gymnastics over the sordid situation involving Larry Nassar.

Typically, conflicts of interest get litigated through motions to disqualify.  Although firms and clients do not like to have to deal with those for obvious reasons, at least in those proceedings the firms and clients have the ability to argue that the party moving for disqualification has the burden of proof.  Even that procedural tool can be lost when the lawyer or firm is the one bringing the action to ask a court for a ruling that they have no conflict.

A quote from the story itself taken from the managing partner of the firm to which the lawyer wanted to go to work provides a helpful bit of transition:

The law as we understand it is that if a person worked at a law firm and doesn’t work on a case, and goes to work for another law firm that has that case and [the lawyer] is shielded from the case … there’s no conflict.

Now, if this were being governed by Tennessee law, I could readily delve into whether that statement would be correct or incorrect assertion of the state of play here, but these are events that involve other states and different rules.

But, to repeat the larger point, if that is what the relevant law or rules set out, then the lawyer and his new firm should never have sought the waiver in the first place.

Litigating your own work product – a tricky (at best) topic.

So, first things first, I am thoroughly surprised and incredibly honored to have made it into the ABA Journal’s 2018 Web 100.  If you are here for the first time because this happened, thanks for reading and feel free to look around as there is 3+ years of content you can read while you are on hold with customer support.  If you are a long-time reader here out of habit, I cherish you and you can rest easy knowing that you are still going to receive the same not-exactly-regularly-scheduled-mostly-maybe-twice-a-week-but-sometimes-only-once-a-week content you have come to expect.

Second things second:  I truly and profoundly recognize the irony that this post leads off crowing about the Web 100 honor after literally just talking about how lawyers shouldn’t blow their own horn online six days ago.  But I’m going to just blow past that irony and move on to today’s offering which comes up more than you might imagine in real-world consultations and that is on the radar screen for today because of two recent developments — a recent ethics opinion from the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and an order denying disqualification out of a Pittsburgh federal court.  If you are a Law360 subscriber you can read some about the Pennsylvania decision and even download the order now here.

Both the ethics opinion and the Pennsylvania decision grapple with what Bill Freivogel refers to on his site as the “Underlying Work” Problem. Bill has written a very good overview at that link of the problem for law firms when they decide to take on the litigation of a matter where its earlier work for the client involved will be at issue and, if history is any guide, will likely have a good summary of that case up relatively soon.

The short version of the order denying disqualification goes like this:  A visiting senior district judge denied a motion to disqualify the lawyer representing a company sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The nature of the claim is that the employee was wrongfully denied extra breaks to deal with her anxiety issues.  The genesis of the disqualification dispute was that the lawyer in question was also the lawyer who gave the company the legal advice that it could deny the employee’s request for this accommodation.

The longer version of understanding how that might not be the outcome you’d expect is best laid out by discussing the recent, really-good, Texas opinion.

In Opinion 682, the Texas Committee explains how its version of the “advocate-witness” rule works under these facts:

A Texas lawyer assisted a client in drafting and negotiating a contract with another party represented by separate counsel.  A lawsuit arose concerning the meaning of certain provisions in the contract.  The lawyer drafted and negotiated those provisions.  The lawyer’s client wants the lawyer and a trial lawyer in the same firm to represent her in the lawsuit.  Both lawyers are attempting to ascertain whether they may do so, and if so, under what conditions, if any.

The opinion does a nice job of explaining the different analysis required for the individual attorney at the firm versus other attorneys at the same firm who were not actually involved in doing the underlying work.  The fundamental difference if it has to be cliff-noted is simply that the confusion involved in the dual role of witness and advocate is severely obviated when a different lawyer is doing the advocating.  The opinion also does a decent job of emphasizing a point that judges sometimes overlook when ruling on disqualification motions — that the disqualification for the witness-lawyer generally does not actually come into play until the trial – not during discovery or even pre-trial motion practice, just at the trial.

As Texas lawyers know, the numbering of the Texas ethics rules is a bit off from the ABA Model Rules even where the substance may be roughly the same.  So, while lawyers normally think of the ethics rule addressing lawyers as witnesses as being Rule 3.7, in Texas it is housed in Rule 3.08.  Although I think the Texas opinion provides the structural narrative for getting to the correct analysis even under the language of Model Rule 3.7, I think it is worth highlighting two pieces of Texas Rule 3.08 that likely are a real improvement on the Model Rule.

First, the rule includes an exception that seems obviously correct but is not actually addressed in the text of the Model Rule.  Texas’s rule makes plain that if the lawyer happens to be a party to the lawsuit and acting pro se, then the prohibition does not arise.  (I have a long history of trying [both for altruistic and pecuniary reasons]to discourage lawyers from acting pro se but it still happens and opposing counsel should not be able to try to use Model Rule 3.7 as a cudgel in such situations.)

Second, and more universally important, the Texas rule goes further in terms of requiring disclosure in two respects that I think are positive.  Like the Model Rule, the Texas rule acknowledges that “substantial hardship” for the client involved can provide an exception to the lawyer’s disqualification if they also have to be a witness.  Unlike the Model Rule, the Texas rule requires the lawyer who will be traveling under that exception to “promptly notif[y] opposing counsel that the lawyer expects to testify in the matter and disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.”  The Texas rule also requires more disclosure to the client when the lawyer’s firm intends to handle the case by taking advantage of imputation of the witness-lawyer’s conflict not working its way to other lawyers at the firm by explicitly conditioning the ability to have some other lawyer at the firm handle upon “the client’s informed consent.”  I think that is a vital piece of the puzzle from a loss prevention standpoint for any firm in such a situation as fully discussing with the client on the front end what the plan is and the risk associated with additional expense in the form of motions to disqualify goes a long way to avoiding grief.

 

 

 

One thing that lawyers and judges have in common.

People often think of lawyers and judges differently.  And, to a large extent, they should.  In almost every situation, someone cannot become a judge without having been a lawyer first.  But once a lawyer transforms into a judge, their role in the judicial system becomes radically different and they now have a new set of ethics rules to which they have to comply.

Yet, lawyers who become judges are still human beings and lawyers who become judges can be plagued by some of the same flawed aspects of being human as lawyers who never become judges.

This post for your Friday wants to offer up 4 very recent examples – 2 involving lawyers and 2 involving judges – of human beings all demonstrating the same variation of a common flaw:  Not knowing when to simply not say stupid things out loud (or in digital format).

On back-to-back days earlier this week, The ABA Journal online had stories about two different lawyers (who likely would have hit it off if they knew each other) getting in trouble for communications to or about clients that were roughly equally ill-advised although they involved the use of two different means of electronic communication.

The first was a New Jersey lawyer who has now been publicly censured over a text communication to a criminal defense client.  The client in question had ceased paying the lawyer and the lawyer had tried on two occasions to be granted leave to withdraw but was unsuccessful as the court denied the withdrawal motions.  Despite being stuck with having to pursue the representation (or perhaps because of it), the lawyer sent a text to his client that the ABA Journal described as follows:

In a text, Terry told the client he wouldn’t prepare in the weekend before the trial without getting paid first. Then he wrote, in all capital letters: “HAVE FUN IN PRISON.”

That text ultimately did manage to get the lawyer out of the case as the client showed it to the judge and the judge then removed the lawyer as counsel.  But it also resulted in the public censure.  At core, the ethics rule the lawyer was deemed to have violated was a conflict of interest rule by placing his own personal interest in getting paid ahead of his obligation to diligently represent the client.

The second was an Iowa lawyer who allowed himself to get too worked up on Facebook — enough to publicly disparage a client.  While, as things currently stand, the lawyer has only been the subject of negative publicity, it remains a real possibility that a disciplinary proceeding could be part of the lawyer’s future.  The ABA Journal treatment of the core of what happened is pretty succinct so I’ll just offer it up for your reading:

In the post, Frese told of a meeting to help prepare a client for trial on federal drug and gun charges. The client told Frese he would have a hard time connecting with blue-collar jurors because he hadn’t “had to work for anything in your life.”

Frese wrote that he was “flabbergasted” by the comment because anyone who knows him is aware of his modest background. Frese wrote that the man is an “idiot and a terrible criminal.”

“He needed to shut his mouth because he was the dumbest person in the conversation by 100 times,” Frese wrote. “You wonder why we need jails huh?”

The lawyer deleted the post in question after he was contacted by the Associated Press about it.  The article points out that the AP was able to piece together from what was written exactly who the lawyer was talking about even though the lawyer didn’t use the name of the client in the post.  The Iowa lawyer’s story highlights one of many reasons why lawyers shouldn’t be writing about their client’s matters without express and clear consent from their client.  Of course, technically, the lawyer made the situation even worse by what it is reported that he said to the AP when contacted:

Frese told AP that he told the client he was in jail because he was terrible at what he did, and they left the meeting on good terms. He didn’t immediately respond to a voicemail from the ABA Journal seeking comment.

On the judicial front, Law360 had two examples reported on the same day of judges demonstrating problems with communications as well.  One of the judges in question also hails from New Jersey.  That judge, as Law360 explained, was censured for inappropriately making certain when communicating to court staff about his own personal child support case to emphasize his status as a judge.  This came across as an obvious attempt to use his judicial office to achieve special treatment.  The other judge highlighted in Law360 this week ended up later engaging in actual conduct that was much worse than the original communications but still also managed to allow the ready access of text messaging to start him down the bad path.  As with most Law360 articles, you will need a subscription to read the full article, but you can get a strong sense of the Jeopardy category of wrongdoing from the opening blurb which explains the circumstances for which he was now offering an apology to a state ethics body in an attempt to avoid discipline:

An ex-Pennsylvania judge facing discipline for exchanging sexually explicit text messages and eventually sleeping with the girlfriend of a man participating in a court-mandated rehab program he oversaw ….

These are, unfortunately, not earth-shattering examples of “new” problems in the human condition.  They do though tend to highlight how much easier modern technology makes it for well-educated professionals to somehow make really poor judgment calls when technology makes it easy to do so and to do so rapidly.

 

The intersection of the ethics rules and the GDPR “right to be forgotten”

Although today is Halloween in my part of the world, I am not offering any spooky content.  I thought about trying to replace all mentions of Maryland in this post with Scaryland, but that just seemed like I was trying too hard.

In fact, I’m a bit torn about even writing about this particular topic because I’m really of two minds in all respects about what to say about Maryland becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to issue an ethics opinion attempting to wrestle with any aspect of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On the one hand, it seems like Maryland ought to be applauded for trying to be on the leading edge of issues of concern and many lawyers (and their firms) are struggling with exactly what GDPR might require of them.

On the other hand, the core premise of the inquiry being addressed involves an assumption about a legal question — not an ethics issue — and is the kind of thing ethics-opinion-writing bodies likely ought to stay away from.

Lots of commentators will give ethics-opinion-writing bodies grief for not, for example, striving to apply Constitutional issues when issuing opinions about the ethics rules.  I’ve probably done that myself in the past.  But, on the whole, more trouble for lawyers can likely come from ethics opinions straying outside the lines and getting a legal issue altogether wrong.

That might or might not have been how it would have shaken out if the Maryland State Bar Association Committee on Ethics had fully committed to trying to figure out whether the premise of the question posed to it in Opinion No. 2018-06 was even how the GDPR would work in the circumstances.

Instead, the committee flagged for the reader the possibility that the GDPR would not require the lawyer to respect the request to be forgotten at all but offered up what is, on the whole, pretty sound guidance that lawyers can bear in mind as to this and similar questions as other jurisdictions start adopting new privacy laws and regulations that may hit closer to home than the GDPR.

The question posed relied on the premise that a former client, if a citizen of the EU, could exercise the “right to be forgotten” by demanding the lawyer delete data about the person and, thereby, cause the lawyer to delete information that would otherwise protect the lawyer in terms of conflict checking in the future to avoid taking on a new client or matter that would involve an unethical conflict of interest as to the former client representation.

The core of the guidance ultimately given – again explicitly premised on assuming that it might ever be necessary – is this:

If a former client asks an attorney to delete the information needed to manage conflicts of interest, and the GDPR requires the attorney do so, we believe that the client’s request can act as a waiver of conflicts that could have been discovered had the data been retained if: (1) the firm provides written advice to the former client that fully informs the former client that deleting the information could result in a conflict and that by requiring such deletion the client consents to the firm’s potential future representation of other clients with conflicts that might have otherwise have been discovered, and (2) none of the attorneys who handle the matter for the firm have any retained knowledge of the former client’s information.

That’s pretty good guidance, actually.

It probably would have been better though if they hadn’t imposed quite so large a burden of communication and advice to the firm in response to the former client.  I think that simply saying that any such request from a former client can be treated by the firm as equivalent to a waiver on the basis that a former client cannot demand that s/he be forgotten and then try to later claim the “forgotten” relationship presents a conflict.

You can read the full Maryland opinion here.

And, if you are interested in more opportunities to hear me try to talk intelligently about what the GDPR does actually mean for U.S. lawyers, I’ll be participating in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on November 9 as part of a joint program presented by APRL and the Law Society of England and Wales.  If you’re interested, you can register at this link.

Can’t stop, won’t stop. Now … full stop.

I’m really, truly not trying to fall into the habit of only managing one post a week.  As proof, here’s a post about a Tennessee lawyer who couldn’t/wouldn’t follow the rules.

It is a fascinating case study for at least two reasons.  One is that discipline for conflicts of interest is, all things considered, relatively rare and, yet, this lawyer’s failure to recognize and avoid a conflict of interest has now led to disbarment.  Second is that it really wasn’t the conflict of interest that got punished with disbarment it was the lawyer’s violation of another rule I’ve mentioned before: The First Rule of Holes.  “When you are in one, stop digging.”

When you violate that rule, you end up in a hole from which you cannot climb out.  That is the end of the story for Homer Cody.

Cody has now been disbarred by the Tennessee Supreme Court in an opinion released earlier this week.  How did he get there?  Well, here’s the short version: he took on a representation that created a conflict from day one and then, despite the imposition of escalating discipline, refused to comply with court orders saying that he had to withdraw from the representation and then kept representing the clients involved even while suspended.

The slightly longer version?  Well, here goes:

A lawsuit was filed all the way back in 2002 that sought judicial dissolution of a childcare entity and its executive director over alleged self-dealing transactions between the executive director and the entity.  In 2003, that executive director was indicted by a grand jury, and then pled guilty to, two counts of theft from the childcare entity.  Near the end of 2004, Cody entered an appearance in the civil lawsuit as an attorney representing both the childcare entity and its executive director.  Joint clients with an obvious conflict between their interests.  That case ended in a ruling that the executive director had failed in her fiduciary duties to the childcare entity and a judgment entered against her in favor of the receiver  – overseeing the entity now in dissolution – for almost $300,000.  Cody filed a notice of appeal from that ruling again as an attorney for both the entity and the executive director.  Who continued to be two clients with glaringly obvious conflicts between them.

In 2007, counsel for the receiver moved to disqualify Cody and, ultimately, in 2008, our state’s Court of Appeals, ruled that Cody was disqualified from representing either of the clients.  Cody, however, continued to undertake actions representing both clients, a contempt action was pursued, and another Court of Appeals ruling was issued emphasizing that Cody had a conflict and was to refrain from representing the entity or the executive director and sent its ruling to our Board of Professional Responsibility.  The BPR filed a petition for discipline in 2011 and that proceeding ended in a public censure being issued against Cody in March 2012.

Despite that fact, Cody (shovel in hand) continued to file pleadings in court as an attorney for both clients.  This resulted in a second disciplinary petition.  In response to that second disciplinary petition, Cody filed a RICO case in federal court, as attorney for the same two clients, claiming that pretty much everyone involved in the court proceedings against his clients were using the Tennessee judicial system “to steal, embezzle, defraud, and to carry out other illegal activities.”  The pending disciplinary case was amended to bring more charges over the representation in the new federal court case.  That disciplinary case resulted in the imposition of an 180-day suspension of Cody’s license in 2015.

I’m guessing at this point, Dear Reader, you can guess what happens next (if for no other reason than that I sort of told you a few paragraphs up in the short version).  During his 180-day suspension, Cody drafted appellate briefs for the same clients, after their RICO case had been dismissed, and had them sign and file them as if he was not involved.  That resulted in a new disciplinary proceeding and culminated in a new one-year suspension in 2016.  Thereafter, Cody prepared three more appellate briefs for those clients — including a petition for cert with the U.S. Supreme Court (!) during his one-year suspension and, in 2017, was hit with a new two-year suspension.  During the one-year suspension but before the two-year suspension began, Cody went back to the state level trial court where it all started and filed an “Open Refusal to Obey Judicial Orders,” along with one or two other filings (including a challenge to the receiver’s fees and expenses), and then, during the two-year suspension period, he filed a “Motion for Determination of Proper Venue.”

Those acts resulted in Cody being found in criminal contempt and actually sentenced to 30 days in jail earlier this year.  Those acts also brought about yet another disciplinary proceeding against him, which he defended by denying the legitimacy of the orders of the Court suspending him, and that resulted in August 2018 in an order disbarring him from the practice of law.

All in all, his saga is a remarkable story that demonstrates at least three things:

(1) you can dig a pretty deep hole over the course of 14 years;

(2) there has to have been something else going on to explain the public meltdown that this lawyer managed to have after apparently practicing for more than 25 years without receiving any public discipline; and

(3) the BPR can truly be dedicated to the concept of incremental discipline when it wants to be as it is almost as hard to believe that Cody was given 180, 1-year, and then 2-year suspensions in these circumstances before ever being disbarred as it is to believe that he kept going out and getting new shovels.

RPC 5.6 and settlement agreements: The TN BPR messes up another ethics opinion.

This is not truly a development that merits the “Bad Ethics Opinion or the Worst Ethics Opinion” treatment, but it is a development that deserves commentary.

Last week while my wife and I were getting some short R&R, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility issued Formal Ethics Opinion 2018-F-166.  If all you read of it were the first two paragraphs, it would sound like a reasonable (albeit somewhat circular) ethics opinion to have issued:

The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion on the ethical propriety of a settlement agreement which contains a confidentiality provision that prohibits any discussion of any facet of the settlement agreement with any other person or entity, regardless of the circumstances, and which prohibits the requesting attorney from referencing the incident central to the plaintiff’s case, the year, make, and model of the subject vehicle or the identity of the Defendants.

OPINION

It is improper for an attorney to propose or accept a provision in a settlement agreement that requires the attorney to be bound by a confidentiality clause that prohibits a lawyer from future use of information learned during the representation or disclosure of information that is publicly available or that would be available through discovery in other cases as part of the settlement, if that action will restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients.

So, again, that sounds reasonable in a vacuum (and it’s that last clause that makes it relatively circular as an application of RPC 5.6.  As the opinion makes clear that the rule on which it is premised and hinges is RPC 5.6(b), which provides:  “A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.”

But, this opinion isn’t issued in a vacuum.  It manages over the course of 4 pages to barely acknowledge the existence of an earlier-issued ethics opinion — Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-141.  It also doesn’t even mention the existence of a more recent Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-F-154.  Those oversights are extremely unfortunate because the existence of those two FEOs should have made the issuance of this new FEO entirely unnecessary.

FEO 98-F-141 explained that a plaintiff’s attorney should not be required to, and should not agree to, be a party to a release and settlement agreement of their client unless the attorney is specifically releasing a claim for attorney fees.  Otherwise, being a party to the release creates conflict of interest issues between the client and the lawyer.  FEO 2010-F-154 repeated this guidance as part of explaining why – despite the problems associated with Medicare super liens — settlement agreements could not require the lawyer for the plaintiff to agree to indemnify the defendants for such liens.  Thus, the second paragraph of FEO 2018-F-166 (if it was ever issued at all) could have read:

We have already opined in FEO 98-F-141 and FEO 2010-F-154 that it is unethical for a plaintiff’s attorney to be required to, or to agree to, be a party to a client’s release and settlement agreement.  For any such provisions to be enforceable against plaintiff’s counsel, (s)he would have to be a party to the settlement agreement, which we’ve already explained is a no-no.  As long as the lawyer is not an actual party to the agreement, then any such provisions are only binding upon the client – not the lawyer — and whether or not the client wishes to agree to them is up to the client given that RPC 1.2(a) declares that the client’s decision to settle a case is something that a lawyer has to abide.  Thus, if a client wants to agree to terms of settlement that are lawful and the lawyer cannot be held to those terms as a party, then the client gets to do as the client wishes in that respect.

And then, FEO 2018-F-166 could have stopped right there.

Since it didn’t go down that way, this new opinion is, at best, unhelpful to the extent that it implies that a client doesn’t have the right to agree to things that they obviously would have the right to agree to or that it implies that if a client does it is somehow binding on the client’s lawyer going forward in future situations even if the lawyer is not a party to the release and settlement agreement and not bound thereby.

Outside counsel guidelines and term limits

While I am on something of a short streak of writing about people much more famous and influential than I am, it seems as good a time as any to offer my thoughts about the article that two very fine lawyers with Hinshaw & Culbertson wrote for The Professional Lawyer in 2017 about even more aspects of the growing problems outside counsel guidelines are creating for lawyers in private practice.  (These same two authors did an earlier article that talked about the problems with indemnity provisions in such guidelines – you can go read that here if you’d like.)  The more recent article was titled The New Battle Over Conflicts of Interest: Should Professional Regulators–or Clients–Decide What is a Conflict?

If you don’t know the article of which I speak, or it has been a while since you read it, you can go read it (again) here.

It is difficult to contest the point being made by the authors in this article, and the earlier one, that increasingly frequent provisions in OCGs are creating real problems for lawyers in private practice.  Particularly so, those pieces of OCGs that feel like they are overreaching related to who must be treated as clients for purposes of determining conflicts.

The authors summarize the nature of these issues quite well as involving clients using OCGs to “expand[] the definition of who is the client (far beyond the bounds of prevailing case law);” “limit[] the universe of other clients from whom lawyers and their firms may accept work;” and to “expand[] the definition of ‘interest’ and ‘positional’ conflicts in order to prevent lawyers and firms from undertaking or continuing to work for other clients that may take public positions on issues that the client unilaterally—and often ex post facto—deems adverse to its own interests.”

What I do disagree with, however, is the authors’ proposal for how to fix this problem.  The authors propose that states amend their versions of Model Rule 5.6 to make it unethical for lawyers to propose or agree to restrictions on their right to practice in connection with being hired by a client, just as is now the case for employment agreements or as terms for resolving a client’s matter.

Under the proposed revision, Rule 5.6 would read as follows (the bold and italicized piece being the new stuff):

A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making:

(a) a partnership, shareholders, operating, employment, or other similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement
concerning benefits upon retirement; or

(b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the terms of engagement of a lawyer by a client or of the settlement of a client controversy.

My immediate reaction to reading that proposal was to think of the problems I have whenever people argue for imposing term limits on their elected representatives.  You get the opportunity to vote people out every time they come up for re-election.  You shouldn’t need a law that limits the number of terms they can serve because you can always simply just vote them out of office in the regular course of things.

The solution to overreaching in outside counsel guidelines is equally simple: lawyers and firms should reject OCGs that go too far and refuse to agree to terms that unreasonably define who must be treated as the client or that become tantamount to restrictions on the right to practice.

The counterargument for that position is about the same as the counter-argument when the discussion involves term limits — the deck is typically too stacked in favor of incumbents so that the balance of power is truly off and that simply saying “you can vote them out” is naive.

The nature of present day demands on lawyers and law firms means that most firms and lawyers won’t be willing enough to turn work away to push back on outside counsel guidelines that are unreasonable and amount to overreaching.  Any firm that really wants to take a stand will have too much economic pressure on it to do so.  I hear the point, but, while that might be a pretty bad basis for enacting term limits and preventing some truly effective politicians from serving for as long as their constituents might like, it’s an extraordinarily bad basis for revising an ethics rule.

In particular, it is a bad basis for revising an ethics rule when there are already one or more ethics rules that lawyers can point to as being breached by aspects of the very OCGs being complained about.  For example, the authors point out that OCGs, in order to enforce their expansive requirements about what is a conflict, also impose obligations on the lawyer to tell the client about matters they are contemplating undertaking.  In so doing, these OCGs are demanding that lawyers agree to disclose information that they are obligated to treat as confidential under RPC 1.18 (assuming they have that provision in their state).

A lawyer who wants to refuse to agree to outside counsel guidelines of that type would have a strong, persuasive argument to offer not only about that violation but the potential risk that an in-house lawyer would have – if insisting that it remain in the agreement – of being considered to have violated their state’s version of Model Rule 8.4(a) which, in most places, makes it a disciplinary violation for a lawyer to “knowingly … induce” another lawyer to violate the ethics rules.

It also seems to me be a bridge too far for lawyers and firm to be able to demand that clients be permitted to agree to advance conflict waivers and similar contractual provisions which would serve to narrow the scope of conflicts but also demand that clients should not be able to propose that the lawyer agree to treat requirements of conflicts even more broadly.

The authors also offer an alternative to their own proposed revised language – perhaps to avoid issues associated with when a restriction would be made a term of engagement or not, by suggesting that Rule 5.6 could otherwise be revised simply in (b) to prohibit “an agreement containing a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice.”  There would be significant problems — perhaps in the nature of unintended consequences – that would come from that alternate revised Rule 5.6 proposal.

If someone is being hired as an in-house lawyer, their corporate employer should be permitted to require that they restrict their practice to only representing the corporate employer and not represent any other clients while employed in-house.  Technically speaking, the second version of the revised Rule 5.6 wouldn’t permit that.  And, even if you are a private practice lawyer and one client wants to provide you with enough work that they also want to have you agree that you won’t work on any other matters for any other clients, why shouldn’t that be okay?

There are examples out there of such lawyers other than just Tom Hagen, the lawyer in The Godfather.

And, coincidentally, Hagen’s also a pretty good example of a lawyer who should have simply turned down a proposed client engagement rather than allowing economic benefits to sway his decision.