The “Now You Know” ad – quite savvy or absolutely horrible?

I had been hoping I could wait a bit to write about this topic but it’s making news via the ABA Journal online today, so I’ll just plow in with this rush job of a post because I’ve already heard discussions in Tennessee about this same ad and before someone more articulate than me blogs about it before I do.

Here’s a link to the article about the Georgia dust up:.

Here, if I’ve done this correctly should be able to watch the advertisement itself at this link — “Now You Know”

For those who can’t get the video to play or who didn’t read the Georgia story above, the gist is that the advertisement explains that the fact that someone has insurance to cover liability in say an auto accident case is something that gets withheld from the jury.  (For what it is worth to those outside Tennessee, in our state insurance coverage is not even discoverable in state court although it is, of course, in federal court.)

Now, based on someone asking me about it, I thought it was already running in Tennessee, but it may only be up in Georgia at the moment.

I’m not at all prepared to weigh in on whether it presents a problem under Georgia’s advertising rules, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that it would be difficult in Tennessee to make the case that the advertisement violates any of our ethics rules.  On the first front, it is hard to point directly at any aspect of the content that would be untruthful so challenges under RPC 7.1 or similar provisions would go nowhere.  Someone might argue that the ad puts a lawyer in the position of doing something “prejudicial to the administration of justice,” in violation of RPC 8.4(d) but the natural retort to that would be, well… is it … really?  And, I suspect that the firm running the advertisement would very much like to spend time debating whether the dissemination of the information is really prejudicial to the administration of justice or not.

If there is a provision that could be fruitfully pursued, I tend to think it would be RPC 3.6(a) which prohibits lawyers from making “an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”  That rule is usually thought of as being designed to protect against publicity that would impact a particular matter, but a statement like this that would apply to all matters to some extent might just be capable of being argued to have sufficient deleterious impact to any one matter to trigger the rule.

I tend to believe that the best response to speech though is more speech, so what I’d really like to see is a defense-oriented firm cut an ad to educate the public about something like the collateral source rule.  Someone could even try to argue that RPC 3.6(c) which permits some responsive statements in order to “protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.”

It’d be interesting to see that play out and whether  the firm strenuously defending this current advertisement would see any problems with a defense-oriented counterpoint.

 

 

 

Friday follow up – Sixth Circuit affirms Kentucky judicial speech case

So, I’ve been battling a bit of a stomach bug such that over the last 45 hours or so I have ingested a cup of yogurt, a sleeve of Ritz crackers, and a small bowl of chicken noodle soup.  Accordingly, this will be a short(ish) post – apologies in advance.

Back in May of this year, I wrote a bit about judicial elections and First Amendment speech issues that continue to be litigated in the context of judicial ethics rules that seek to restrict what judges can say when campaigning for public office.  I spoke about a federal court decision out of Kentucky that was the most recent instance of a federal court striking down certain kinds of provisions and that it appeared to be among the first cases to interpret an important U.S. Supreme Court case from 2015 – Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar.

Just a little over three months has passed, and the Sixth Circuit now has already issued its ruling in Winter v. Wolnitzek affirming just about every aspect of the Kentucky district court’s decision.  While the Sixth Circuit gives much credit to the district judge for its “thorough and thoughtful opinion,” the Sixth Circuit’s opinion is no slouch in the thoughtfulness category either.

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion affirmed the ruling that, because of how the Kentucky Supreme Court interpreted the provision, the “shall not campaign as a member of a political organization” prohibition was vague and constitutionally overbroad — specifically “too vague to tightly regulate the problem and too vague to avoid scaring off permissible electoral speech.”

It also affirmed the ruling that the provision prohibiting judicial candidates from “mak[ing] speeches for or against a political organization or candidate” is unconstitutional because it extends to prevent Kentucky judicial candidates “from announcing their views on disputed legal and political subjects.”  In terms of the (perhaps) most closely-watched aspect of the case in front of it, the Sixth Circuit decided to remand to allow Kentucky an opportunity to clarify whether it will interpret “impartiality” in its “Commits clause” to mean only impartiality as to parties.

You can read all aspects of the opinion at the link provided above, but. if I had to guess, I think the most lasting legacy of this decision and the sentence likely to be quoted the most in the future is:

A State may not hold judicial elections, then prevent candidates from explaining what makes them qualified for that office.

Whether it is a good thing or not for performance of the judiciary as a whole, there are presently (and undoubtedly will be many more in the future) candidates in public judicial elections who believe strongly that part of what makes them qualified for office are their political views. their political allegiances, and the like.

Revisiting the question of whether the ethics rules need revamping as to discrimination & harassment

So, quite a few months ago, I wrote about what (I think) was the first iteration of the proposed revision to RPC 8.4 to add a black-letter rule addressing discrimination and harassment.  My verdict at the time was one of skepticism that it made any sense at all to move workplace and employment discrimination issues to the ethics rules.

The proposal has now gone through several revisions and the end product — that will be put in front of the ABA House of Delegates in August 2016, is this Resolution.  The Resolution proposes the adoption of this new RPC 8.4(g), making it professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

harass or discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.  This Rule does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.

The proposal also involves the adoption of two new comments, Cmt. [3], [4], and [5] that would provide as follows:

[3]  Discrimination and harassment by lawyers in violation of paragraph (g) undermines confidence in the legal profession and the legal system.  Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others because of their membership or perceived membership in one or more of the groups listed in pragraph (g).  Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct towards a person who is, or is perceived to be, a member of one of the groups.  Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.  The substantive law of antidiscrimination and anti-harassment statutes and case law may guide application of paragraph (g).

[4]  Conduct related to the practice of law includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business, or social activities in connection with the practice of law.  Paragraph (g) does not prohibit conduct undertaken to promote diversity.

[5]  Paragraph (g) does not prohibit legitimate advocacy that is material and relevant to factual or legal issues or arguments in a representation.  A lawyer does not violate paragraph (g) by limiting the scope or subject matter of the lawyer’s practice or by limiting the lawyer’s practice to members of underserved populations in accordance with these Rules and other law.  A lawyer may charge and collect reasonable fees and expenses for a representation.  Rule 1.5(a).  Lawyers also should be mindful of their professional obligations under Rule 6.1 to provide legal services to those who are unable to pay, and their obligation under Rule 6.2 not to avoid appointments from a tribunal except for good cause.  See Rule 6.2(a), (b) and (c).  A lawyer’s representation of a client does not constitute an endorsement by the lawyer of the client’s views or activities.  See Rule 1.2(b).

I still have some misgivings about aspects of the proposal, but I will say that my view on it has largely come around and changed from where I was back when I first wrote about an earlier version of the proposal.  It does seem from the more I read about, and hear people debate these issues, there are still very significant workplace problems presented by the way lawyers treat other lawyers, as well as those that are not lawyers but must work with them on a day-to-day basis.  I will also admit that my view has changed on the need for that, in no small part, by watching events as they have played out on the national political stage and becoming very uncomfortable in hearing the rhetoric of those who are decrying this rule proposal as somehow fostering “political correctness,” sound eerily like one of our two presidential candidates, the one who seems to think it is appropriate to demean and vilify almost all who do not look like he does.  In a world in which there can be seemingly a third of the population as a whole that embraces such an approach to life, it seems the least that an organization like the ABA can do to advocate for this kind of additional protection from harassment and discrimination to be a part of its Model Rules.

The misgivings I still have are mostly with the language and meaning of new Comment [5].  By adding “that is material and relevant to factual or legal issues or arguments in a representation,” to modify “legitimate advocacy,” it makes me think the intent is that there could be “legitimate advocacy” of some other type.  I’m not sure there is, but if there is it should probably likewise be exempt and, thus, “legitimate advocacy” without further elaboration would seem to be the right language to use.

I also wonder whether this provision would truly mean the end — for example — of family law firms that market themselves as exclusively representing one gender or another in such proceedings.  I know what my thoughts are on what should be the correct result, but I have some trouble reconciling the proposed rule and the explanation in the Comment to determine how that item would be treated.

The entire report accompanying the resolution is available at that link provided above and it is worth a read.

 

 

“En” to the . . . ah . . . to the no, no, no!

So, blame my children for the Meghan Trainor reference, but it is a catchy tune and, actually, not the worst of messages of female empowerment.  Nevertheless, it fits my ramblings today too well for me to resist.

A blurb about a trademark infringement suit involving an Atlanta law firm that operates under a trade name caught my eye this week.  You can read a Law360 story about it here, but know on the front end that the headline is incorrect and that the reason it is incorrect is the core of my not-fully-formed point.

The short form of the story is there is this Atlanta law firm that operates under a trade name of Trusted Counsel, technically Trusted Counsel Ashley LLC.  Law firm use of trade names is not universally accepted in terms of advertising regulations, of course, as there are some states that simply do not permit their use.  In Georgia, trade names can ethically be used as long as they include the name of at least one attorney in the firm (hence the “Ashley” reference) and “does not imply a connection with a government entity, with a public or charitable legal services organization or any other organization, association or institution or entity, unless there is, in fact, a connection.”   Tennessee’s version of RPC 7.5(a) is simultaneously more, and less, permissive as there is no requirement that a name of a lawyer be included but a clearer provision that no trade name can be used if it would violate RPC 7.1 (i.e. be false or misleading).

The law firm, Trusted Counsel (which interestingly is the only part of the firm name apparently that has been trademarked by Trusted Counsel Ashley) has been operating since 2003.  That firm has sued a much newer arrival to the Atlanta marketplace, Entrusted Counsel LLC, claiming trademark infringement, Lanham Act violations, and even cybersquatting.

Now the headline in the Law360 story was that a Georgia law firm had been sued, but even the actual lawsuit doesn’t go so far as to make that allegation (though clearly the plaintiff hopes you will draw that inference), instead the lawsuit (which you can read but not print off at this site on Scribd) asserts that the source of the infringement and the reason for confusion is that both Trusted Counsel and Entrusted Counsel provide “legal services.”

It took me fewer than 5 minutes of clicking around on the web to see that Entrusted Counsel is a consulting outfit owned/operated by someone who is not a lawyer.  Now, I’m admittedly not an expert in trademark law so the fact that Entrusted Counsel isn’t a law firm and can’t practice law may not mean squat with respect to the merits of the trademark suit, but it certainly is an interesting little fact given all the recent hew and cry over the ABA resurfacing — albeit briefly and to no avail — the discussion about whether the ethics rules should be revised to permit outside, nonlawyer investment in law firms.

I can’t help wondering, if the roles were reversed, what would lawyers say if a consulting shop, owned by a nonlawyer, sued a law firm that had a similar name for trademark infringement.

Speaking of advertising regulations, the other tidbit making waves and news in legal circles this week is that New Jersey has decided to weigh in, yet again, on “accolade advertising.”  Quite a few years ago, New Jersey attempted to put its arms out and hold back the tide of “superlative” or “accolade” advertising among lawyers.  The effort, as it should have been, was ultimately futile.

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Attorney Advertising issued a “Notice to the Bar,” to clarify just when, and how, lawyers in New Jersey are permitted to publicly discuss the fact that a third party has conferred upon them a rating or accolade of some sort.  What drives the regulatory impulses to seek to impose barriers on references to such ratings or accolades is, of course, the unfortunate belief that all entities that provide ratings somehow have an underhanded, “pay to play” component.  To whatever little extent anecdotal evidence can rebut such preconceived notions, I have been fortunate enough to be listed in Best Lawyers in America since 2009, to be listed as a “Super Lawyer” beginning in 2011 by MidSouth Super Lawyers, and was awarded an AV rating by Martindale Hubbell back in 2006 or so and have never paid a dime  to any of those entities to run an advertisement or even to receive a plaque acknowledging my inclusion.

Are there entities that do little by way of separating wheat from chaff other than to see if a lawyer will pay for an accolade?  Absolutely.  But, as indicated above in what it took to figure out that Entrusted Counsel doesn’t practice law, it takes about 5 minutes at most these days to go online and figure out what the score is.

You can read the entirety of the NJ guidance here if you really want to but prepare to be frustrated and to sense the begrudging nature of the whole discussion.  If you want just the short version, here is what they say a hypothetical lawyer could say in compliance with their requirements:

Jane Doe was selected to the 2016 Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found at www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process_detail.html.  No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Or, here is how it would read if that hypothetical lawyer wanted to tweet about it:

Jane Doe was selected to the 2016 Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection met

The “Notice to the Bar,” explains that it was issued because the committee “has received numerous grievances regarding attorney advertising of awards, honors, accolades that compare a lawyer’s services to other lawyer’s services.”

I wish the NJ committee would have just hired Ms. Trainor to answer the phones, she could have told the complaining lawyers:

You need to let it go, you need to let it go.  Need to let it go.  Nah to the ahh to the no, no, no.

 

Judicial elections are expensive in more ways than one.

There are lots of sources and stories about the escalation of dollars poured into, and spent in, judicial elections in various states.  Here’s an April 2016 article about Wisconsin; and here’s an October 2015 press release from a special-interest group made of folks including The Brennan Center.  But that isn’t the only thing that makes them expensive, state elections for judges also are expensive endeavors because they tend to breed litigation because of the regulatory structure that exists through state judicial ethics codes imposing restrictions on what judges and judicial candidates can and cannot say when running for office.  The stakes for all involved are high, not just because of the office sought but because judicial candidates who want to exercise First Amendment rights in campaigning also risk discipline against their law license for doing so given that most states, like Tennessee, have a rule like RPC 8.2(b) that makes lawyers who are campaigning for judicial office subject to discipline for violating applicable provisions of the state Code of Judicial Conduct.

The litigation being bred seems to be resulting in a slow, but steady, drip-drip-drip of rulings demonstrating that when a state makes the decision to allow their judges to stand for public election, there really is very, very little that can truly be regulated with respect to what they say in the furtherance of such campaigns.  The speech of candidates for office is core political speech and that means strict scrutiny is the standard that must be satisfied.  The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar in 2015, upholding restrictions on personal solicitation of funds by judicial candidates, did offer some hope for existing state regulation on judicial campaign activity, as the majority opinion brushed away a number of concerns on the basis that what the First Amendment requires is that a restriction be “narrowly tailored” not “perfectly tailored,”  But the lasting legacy of Williams-Yulee is more likely to be found in the ramifications of these words:

In sum, we hold today what we assumed in White: A State may restrict the speech of a judicial candidate only if the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.

It seems, with strict scrutiny as the standard, that beyond being able to prohibit promises or pledges about how a judge will rule as to a particular party or a particular lawsuit, the only other restriction on speech that will stand the test of time — because judges are recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as being different than other politicians — is that judges can’t make false statements on the campaign trail.

The most recent expensive litigation decision over efforts to restrict the speech of judicial candidates comes from federal district court in Kentucky striking down several Kentucky restrictions as unconstitutional on various grounds under the First Amendment.  Several of the provisions struck down are ones that we also have in our Tennessee judicial ethics rules.

You can read the full 45-page opinion in  Winter v. Wolnitzek here, but I will give you what I hope you’ll find to be a pretty comprehensive summary in case you don’t want to add to your reading pile.

A little word about procedure and context, the case before the Kentucky federal court involved three judges/judicial candidates and involved, along the way, a certified question to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  In combination, the situations of the three judges teed up questions such as: (1) what did it mean to “campaign as a member of a political organization,” (2) what it took to be someone who acted “as a leader or officer in a political organization,” and (3) what constituted a “false statement.”  Those three questions were certified to the Kentucky Supreme Court for answers under state law.

Eventually, the Kentucky federal court issued this decision examining six canons of judicial ethics in Kentucky and striking down several of them as unconstitutional.  Specifically, it struck Kentucky’s provisions restricting candidates from judicial office from “campaigning as a member of a political organization,” struck part of the prohibition on making “speeches for or against a political organization or candidate or publicly endors[ing] or oppos[ing] a candidate for public office,” struck the prohibition on political donations, and struck the prohibition on engaging in “any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.  The Winter decision also struck Kentucky’s prohibition on judicial candidates making misleading statements.  Most importantly, because it is the issue that  really tends to be the “54/40 or fight line” when it comes to restrictions on judicial campaign speech, the federal district court found that — with respect to cases or controversies — Kentucky can prohibit pledges and promises, but as to issues, taking its lead from the Sixth Circuit’s analysis in Carey v. Wolnitzek, the federal district court said the restriction must fall.

Interestingly, as to the “campaigning as a member of a political organization,” provision, that was struck on void for vagueness grounds because the court treated the provision — in light of the ruling of the Kentucky Supreme Court on certification — as applying to any statement that said, or implied, that a person was a party’s official nominee.  (This is the context of my favorite quote from the opinion — if the Kentucky Supreme Court says that “arson” means “whale hunting,” then “whale hunting is what arson means.”  It also struck the “improve the law” provision on void for vagueness grounds as well – for more obvious reasons.  The other provision it found unconstitutionally vague was the prohibition on misleading statements.

It upheld, but only facially, the Kentucky prohibition on serving as a leader of a political organizations or holding any office in a political organization.  It also upheld the prohibition on judges making false statements while campaigning, but it did not provide an answer to whether one judge’s statement that she wanted to be “re-elected” was a false statement that could be constitutionally punished under that provision when she had been appointed and was not standing for election for the first time.

As to making speeches, the Kentucky court differentiated between political organizations and candidates, finding that, if as the Sixth Circuit indicates in Carey, you cannot stop a judge from self-identifying with a political party, then necessarily it means they can publicly speak in favor of their chosen party.  The court found endorsements, however, to be something altogether different causing it to venture off into a discussion of “high politics v. low politics.”  Yet, in hair-splitting fashion, the court does think it’s okay to give a speech favoring or opposing a particular candidate.  As to the pledges and promises issue, it found that changes that had been made to that provision in Kentucky, post-Carey didn’t change the outcome on constitutionality because the effort to limit application of the ban to pledges or promises that were  “inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office” was really little more than question begging.

More challenges are almost certainly guaranteed.  In Tennessee, for example, our judicial ethics rules presently still seek to prohibit candidates for judicial office from “mak[ing] speeches on behalf of a political organization,” (Rule 10, RJC 4.1(A)(2)); “knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, mak[ing] any false or misleading statement,” (Rule 10, RJC 4.1(A)(11)); and “in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, mak[ing] pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.” (Rule 10, RJC 4.1(A)(13)).

A word about B**chslaps

It’s a stupid and demeaning term.  In both contexts, whether you replace the asterisks with the original two letters, it, or the other two letters, en.  It is unfortunate that the second term was ever coined by this guy, and it is remarkable to think that this guy has included it for many years as a recognized and defined term in Black’s Law Dictionary.

My opinions on that front are what they are, and the reality is what it is.  As the once-prominent fictional lawyer Richard Fish would say, “Bygones.”

An associate professor at the Washburn School of Law has an article out, for now just available through SSRN, that you can read here.  It is an interesting read.  To me, the most interesting part of it was how I managed to agree pretty much completely with the central premise — judges should not issue opinions that include language that is designed to try to remedy a lawyer’s behavior (or deter other lawyers from engaging in the same behavior) through belittlement and, simultaneously, disagree with so much of the article itself.

Absolutely, judges should see the act of engaging in a “b**chslap” as beneath her/him, and it ought to be something that our profession, the loam from which judges grow, discourages for lots of different reasons.  The simplest basis for doing so would be the general principle I keep coming back to like something of a broken record . . . don’t be an ass.  Another pretty good concept from which to work to vigorously argue against the prevalance of the issuance of such rulings is an often articulated rule of satire…. always punch up, never punch down.

But, the article.  So many things with which to beg to differ.  Bullying?  Or even workplace bullying?  I get the instinct — frankly even the rule of satire I just reference speaks in terms of “punching down” as being an act of bullying — but, for some reason (n.b. it is probably fn. 1’s slightly over-the-top dedication of the piece “to all those who suffered under the thumb of a schoolyard or workplace bully”), the author’s decision to frame that as the issue in this article leaves me feeling like it diminishes the importance of the bullying topic in modern life.  Plus, if an author were truly insistent on taking that tack, then it is tough to justify deciding not to scrutinize the judge v. judge instances that are briefly discussed at page 11 and fn. 59 and then promptly cast aside.  Those instances, particularly in the context of reviewing courts, are (if anything in this arena is) actual workplace bullying.

As to the underlying questions of judicial ethics, I certainly agree that many of the examples referenced in the article raise serious questions of violations of provisions similar to Rule 2.8(b) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct.  Nonetheless, as to the notion that two new comments are needed to somehow empower judicial disciplinary authorities to take action, I again beg to differ.   The necessary judicial ethics provision is already there to remedy judicial conduct that crosses the line.  Adding explanatory comments won’t necessarily help things because, if there is a problem of enforcement flowing from the existing rules, it would seem to me to be a reluctance to use that provision because of the significant void-for-vagueness constitutional issue that also plagues those who would seek to make “professionalism” a discipline issue for lawyers.

I also disagree with the stated idea that taking the lawyer to task in a public opinion cannot be “other appropriate action” consistent with Rule 2.15 and the implied, if not actually stated, assertion that a judge should pursue such a communication about disappointment with a lawyer’s behavior through a private channel.

The author should acknowledge that any truly private communication from unhappy judge to poorly-performing lawyer while the case was ongoing would raise real ethical concerns for both parties over rules restricting ex parte communications between judges and lawyers.  Thus, presumably, the author would anticipate the court having to wait until the matter is concluded to reach out to the lawyer involved to privately chide them, but the timing of that would leave much to be desired in terms of likely effectiveness.  Although Rule 2.9 of the ABA Model Code permits otherwise prohibited ex parte communications when expressly authorized by law, the language of Rule 2.8 seems a far cry from providing clear cover for a private one-on-one chat session.

In fact, if there were to be any tinkering with the judicial code of ethics to address public belittling, I’d posit that undertaking to make crystal clear that rather than excoriate a lawyer in a published opinion for misconduct which the judge does not believes rises to the level of a required disciplinary report, the other appropriate action that the judge could take would include a truly private discussion with counsel notwithstanding the bar on ex parte communications under Rule 2.9.

I also am unconvinced by the author’s conclusion that judicial ethics rules must be insufficient because judges don’t seem to be punished for such writings.  Or, to quote from the author, “the current system of judicial ethical enforcement has proved either unwilling or unable to address the propriety of judges issuing benchslaps.”  The author appears to be  glossing over the fact that, disciplinary entities, for the most part are not in the business of commencing their own cases and instead react to the filing of complaints about judicial misconduct.  That can be one very likely reason  — no one ever complained to the appropriate authority — that none of the prominent examples the author focuses on in his article resulted in any punishment.

And, I’m going to presume the author is correct about that, as I don’t know (and suspect the author does not know either) whether any of those judges may well have received private discipline.  Another reason can be that where that line is, and when it has been crossed, is very much in the eye of the beholder.  One of the examples that the author uses of how a court can appropriately address something in a written opinion without turning into something that is a b**chslap is In re S.C., 138 Cal. App. 4th 396 (2006).  Yet, if you go back and reread the opening lines of that decision the author quotes from, and imagine the decision being issued in 2016 and not 2006, I suspect it too would get prominent attention at Above The Law as an example of the genre.

Finally, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that making it easier for lawyers to pursue appeal when attacked in this manner is not the answer.  In terms of workable, practical answers, it strikes me as the best, realistic answer.  There needs to be clarity that lawyers do so on their own dime and not at their client’s expense if the client otherwise has no interest in pursuing an appellate remedy, but clearer availability of obtaining appellate review could go a long way toward discouraging the belittling judicial conduct.

The best answer (though probably not at all realistic) would be for media coverage of such instances to adopt the critical tone of Judge Edith Jones’s email quoted in a footnote of the article.  If the judges who are prone to belittle with their rhetoric weren’t celebrated in the media for doing so, then they might be much less inclined to continue to crank out such writings.  In the meantime, perhaps the article and the public discussions of it and attendant publicity of the topic it is generating, will help such judges become more inclined to pursue the better angels of their nature and remove such items during the drafting process after they have had the private, cathartic benefit of having drafted the language in the first place.

Three updates for you on this election-year President’s Day.

Given that there isn’t a lot going on in the news that relates to legal issues, I feel obligated to offer lawyers something to read.  (I don’t think I’ve ever gone on record here about how badly I wish someone would create and implement a sarcasm font upon which all users could agree.  Maybe it would be a way to use comic sans where everyone would be ok with it?)

Back around Thanksgiving, I wrote about a Virginia federal court ruling that laid the framework for a future decision about whether a particular provision in a law firm operating agreement violated RPC 5.6.  Specifically, the provision required a departing shareholder who goes on to practice law in competition with the firm to forfeit half of their equity interest in the firm.  I concluded my original post by speculating that the outcome would ultimately hinge on how the court interpreted a paragraph in Comment [2] of D.C.’s version of the rule.  Sure enough, the court has now ruled, and its ruling did hinge to a significant extent upon application of that language as quoted in this piece from the ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual.  Interestingly though, much of the fight in the case actually came down to whether half of the shareholder’s equity interest was even a “substantial” financial penalty at all.

In the face of an argument from the firm that it wasn’t substantial because it was significantly less than the departing lawyer’s salary at his new destination, and expert testimony that the fragility of law firms should allow provisions forfeiting equity to avoid a “death spiral” when owners leave unexpectedly, the court looked only at the penalty in its own context:

Moreover, the practical effect of the Firm’s forfeiture clause is to penalize withdrawing members who wish to continue to represent even one of the Firm’s clients by depriving them of a previously accrued equity interest to which they otherwise would be entitled.  When Moskowitz left the Firm, he faced a choice: receive the full value of his [ownership interest] and turn down his clients who sought his continued representation, or forfeit fifty percent of his equity interest in the Firm and continue to represent his clients’ interests. There is a clear disincentive attached to the latter option.

Update part two & three – I’ve also tried to keep up with events in Pennsylvania and Texas as they unfold with respect to the fates of their top law enforcement officers, both of whom face criminal prosecution.

In Pennsylvania, the sitting Attorney General had something of a mixed bag of recent events.  Her effort to have her law license reinstated denied, but she managed on a first vote to survive being removed from office by the Pennsylvania Senate.

As to the Texas AG, you may recall that back when I first posted about any of this, I mentioned a disciplinary complaint that had nothing to do with, and predated in time, the indictment against him.  (Though unlike the events made the subject of the indictment, the disciplinary complaint actually related to the AG’s conduct in office.) Although there have not been any recent events regarding the indictment to catch my attention, there has now been news that the disciplinary complaint which originally was headed toward dismissal, has now been reinstated and will move forward over the AG’s advice to public officials that they could freely disregard the authority of the United States Supreme Court.

 

The Wisdom of Ferris Bueller. The reality of Machiavelli.

Life moves pretty fast.  If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. – Ferris Bueller

Back in December 2015, during my Ethics Roadshow I talked a little bit about one of the items that had been rolled out for public comment by the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services, model regulatory objectives that might be used by jurisdictions to examine both how they regulate lawyers and how they might go about regulating others who provide legal services.  The discussion I had about this topic with audiences was way too disjointed at the time. (It is a topic that itself could have had an hour’s worth of dedicated discussion, but it was just one of many topics covered during the three hours of my presentation repeated across several cities in Tennessee.)  Earlier this week, a version of those regulatory objectives was adopted by the ABA House of Delegates after heated arguments and over significant opposition.  The ABA is now hawking Resolution 105 as a way to move the needle forward in an effort to ensure that those who provide legal services to consumers but are not lawyers are appropriately regulated.  Time will tell whether that effort will gain traction.

It was slightly less than a month ago that the news started to roll out about the planned launch of Avvo Legal Services and I wrote about it here. At the time, it was being tested in five cities.  Presumably, such testing was positive (or the outcome of the testing never really mattered) because now the news comes along that Avvo Legal Services has officially launched in 18 states.  Which states?  Well you can go read the article at the link, or you can see the list at the end of this post.

I’ve always liked the Ferris Bueller and life does move pretty fast, but another quote somehow seems more appropriate in this moment, though it comes from someone much less lovable:

[F]or there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation. – Niccolo Machiavelli

Oh yeah, which states has Avvo Legal Services launched in and is looking to have lawyers participate:

  • Arizona (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may: 1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service, which may include, in addition to any membership fee, a fee calculated as a percentage of legal fees earned by the lawyer to whom the service or organization has referred a matter, provided that any such percentage fee shall not exceed ten percent, and shall be used only to help defray the reasonable operating expenses of the service or organization and to fund public service activities, including the delivery of pro bono legal services. The fees paid by a client referred by such service shall not exceed the total charges that the client would have paid had no such service been involved. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority….”)
  • California (Rule 1-600 (A) “A member shall not participate in a nongovernmental program, activity, or organization furnishing, recommending, or paying for legal services, which . . . allows any third person or organization to receive directly or indirectly any part of the consideration paid to the member except as permitted by these rules, or otherwise violates the State Bar Act or these rules.”)
  • Colorado (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a layer may (1) pay the reasonable costs of communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or legal service organization….”)
  •  Florida (Rule 4-7.17(b) “A lawyer may not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may pay the reasonable cost of advertising permitted by these rules, may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service, lawyer directory or other legal service organization….”)
  • Georgia (RPC 5.4(a)(5) “A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: . . . a lawyer may pay a referral fee to a bar-operated non-profit lawyer referral service where such fee is calculated as a percentage of legal fees earned by the lawyer to whom the service has referred a matter pursuant to Rule 7.3. Direct Contact with Prospective Clients.”)
  • Illinois (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may (1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service….”)
  • Massachusetts (RPC 7.2(c) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may: (1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or legal service organization….”)
  • Maryland (RPC 7.2(c) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may (1) pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written communication permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service….”)
  • Michigan (RPC 7.2(c) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may: Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct Last Updated 2/4/2015 (i) pay the reasonable cost of advertising or communication permitted by this rule; (ii) participate in, and pay the usual charges of, a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization that satisfies the requirements of Rule 6.3(b)….”)
  • North Carolina (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may (1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service that complies with Rule 7.2(d), or a prepaid or group legal services plan that complies with Rule 7.3(d)….”
  • New Jersey (RPC 7.2(c) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that: (1) a lawyer may pay the reasonable cost of advertising or written communication permitted by this Rule; … (3) a lawyer may pay the usual charges of a not-for-profit lawyer referral service or other legal service organization.”)
  • New York (RPC 7.2(a) “A lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or obtain employment by a client, or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment by a client, except that: . . . (2) a lawyer may pay the usual and reasonable fees or dues charged by a qualified legal assistance organization or referral fees to another lawyer as permitted by Rule 1.5(g).”)
  • Ohio (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may pay any of the following: (1) the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this rule; (2) the usual charges of a legal service plan; (3) the usual charges for a nonprofit or lawyer referral service that complies with Rule XVI of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio ….”)
  • Pennsylvania (RPC 7.2(c) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may pay: … (2)  the usual charges of a lawyer referral service or other legal service organization….”) (RPC 7.7(b) “A ‘’lawyer referral service’’ is any person, group of persons, association, organization or entity that receives a fee or charge for referring or causing the direct or indirect referral of a potential client to a lawyer drawn from a specific group or panel of lawyers.”)
  • Texas (Rule 7.03(b) “A lawyer shall not pay, give, or offer to pay or give anything of value to a person not licensed to practice law for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to, any lawyer or firm, except that a lawyer may pay reasonable fees for advertising and public relations services rendered in accordance with this Rule and may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service that meets the requirements of Occupational Code Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 952.”)
  • Virginia (7.3(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services except that a lawyer may:(1) pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule and Rule 7.1; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit qualified lawyer referral service ….”)
  • Washington (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may (1) pay the reasonable cost of advertisements or communications permitted by this Rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit lawyer referral service….”)
  • Wisconsin (RPC 7.2(b) “A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, except that a lawyer may: (1) pay the reasonable cost of advertisements or communications permitted by this rule; (2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate regulatory authority….”)

Revisiting things not to do in court – Friday edition

Being in between stops for the Roadshow until next week, but still having two more to do (Wednesday in Chattanooga and Thursday in Knoxville), this will again be a bit more of a short(ish), punchy offering.

A few months ago I wrote a post about things not to do in court that discussed two incidents.  One of the incidents was the lawyer who took a selfie with his client in court after a successful jury verdict and posted it to social media.  I explained by belief that it seemed wrong for the lawyer to have been scolded at all by the court for the incident given the age-old notion that courtrooms – unless sealed via a proper protective order – are supposed to be public, open proceedings, since they are where public business gets accomplished.  I happen to think the routine imposition of such restrictions by judges is antithetical to the First Amendment right of access to court proceedings and to the ideal that what happens in the courtroom is public property.  I certainly understand that some of the rules that are in place that seek to prohibit broadcasting are premised on the notion that traditional media reporting and video broadcasting can be disruptive or a distraction to the proceedings, but in 2015 when anyone with a smart phone can unobstrusively take photos and disseminate information to the public in real time about what is going on in their courtrooms (and could even use an app like Periscope to live-stream proceedings without actually being at all disruptive) should merit revisiting a lot of the rules in place in federal courts that chill public dissemination of information about court proceedings.

I had been avoiding writing anything about this more recent Illinois federal court incident where a partner with a prominent law firm was facing a show cause order over having taken photos of evidence, and tweeting about that evidence, during a criminal trial in which he was just acting as a spectator in the courtroom.  Because the obvious ethics and lawyering angle didn’t immediately dawn on me.

But, there is at least one ethics rule worth mentioning for discussion so, with this week’s development that the lawyer in question sort of proposed his own sanction for his conduct in the form of making a charitable donation and performing some additional CLE and the court essentially agreed with it yesterday although it quintupled the amount of the proposed donation to $5,000 — I’m reversing course and writing just a few words about this.

Under the ethics rules in many jurisdictions,  including the version of RPC 3.4(c) adopted in Tennessee and in Illinois, it is not unethical for a lawyer to “knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal,” if done through “an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”  (And, strictly speaking, although that rule does not say it is limited to a lawyer representing a client, given its title as “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel,” that kind of limitation is pretty strongly implied.)   Of course, this lawyer was never going to be in a position to do that because he first quickly stated he hadn’t seen the sign and then relatively quickly apologized for and tried to mitigate the repercussions of the conduct.  The Show Cause order lays out all the various levels of court rule that were involved here, starting with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 and working all the way down to the posted sign.  So there would be quite a few rules that a lawyer wanting to make such a challenge would have to claim to be openly defying.  The only other rule it seems like could be used to come after a lawyer for this kind of conduct in their role as a citizen would be RPC 8.4(d), but it seems to me the policies that impose these kind of restrictions are more prejudicial to the administration of justice than what this lawyer did.

I do wish that one of these days there will be an appropriately high-profile vehicle that serves to spur a conversation about why our profession doesn’t do more to challenge these kind of restrictions in federal courts.  Of course, that it is easy for me to say sitting here on my laptop and not in this lawyer’s shoes.  And, it’s especially easy for me to say when I’m likely to merely comply with the same sort of rules here in the federal district courts in which I practice rather than attempting to personally make any such waves.

New “Brick and Mortar” column out this week (+ 2 other things you should read)

Unfortunately, it does not appear to be up and online as of yet at The Memphis Bar‘s website, but the latest issue of The Memphis Lawyer is out, and I have a column in it.  The column — The Revised RPC 7.3(b)(3): The Road to Constitutional Infirmity is Paved With Good Intentions — talks about a revision to the Tennessee ethics rules that has been in effect since May 1, 2015 and should be of particular relevance to family lawyers.  (Regular readers of this blog may recall reading a bit about that development in this earlier post.)  My latest column also talks a bit about one of the last U.S. Supreme Court cases from last term — Reed v. Town of Gilbert — that may lay the groundwork for all content-based restrictions on commercial speech (including most restrictions on attorney advertising) having to survive “strict scrutiny” analysis to pass constitutional muster.

Once it is eventually up online, I’ll post an update of some fashion, but if you happen to be a lawyer in Memphis and your issue is sitting in your reading pile … well consider yourself warned.

In the meantime, let me suggest two other things deserving of a read and well worth your time.  (And I see in advance the humor of me suggesting that the two items be read as I am confident they both have more readers than I do.)

Karen Rubin has a smart take on something I had no idea existed — prepackaged blog content for lawyers.  She gets the ethics analysis quite correct (of course) and avoids explicitly making the kind of snarky statement I would have made:  If you are buying prepackaged blog content to pass off as your own to assist with proving yourself to be a “thought leader,” you’re not showing much “thought” and you certainly aren’t “leading.”  The one question I still have about the whole scheme is whether Checkpoint Marketing intends to sell the same canned content to multiple lawyers?  It’s a business model that works in t.v. ads for lawyers (though admittedly it worked better before YouTube because you were less likely to ever see the same ad concept in the other markets).  If multiple lazy bloggers lawyers can each buy the same stuff, it would seem likely to lead to even a greater level of embarrassment when a simple Google search for some particular phrasing in a post would pretty quickly reveal multiple astroturfish posts from different lazy bloggers “authors.”

The second is this New York Times piece on the revelation that the human being who is serving as General Counsel of Al Jazeera America, and who has a quite impressive resume of places of employment before that might not actually have ever been a lawyer at all during the last three decades or so.  It’s a fascinating read, and the story has now triggered Al Jazeera America to suspend the gentlemen and pursue an investigation.