Status quo prevails. A Tennessee update

I am still Roadshowing this week, among other things, so I will again offer some content but with a caveat about its brevity.  (And, again, if you are sitting in a highly-entertained crowd looking for the embedded Spotify playlist just keep scrolling and you’ll find it.)

In the before time, the long, long-ago at this space (right before Xmas 2016 actually), I previously mentioned how Tennessee is a jurisdiction that does not toll the statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions based on the continuing representation of counsel.  When I did so, I managed to offer a contradictory take from the “Hot List” folks in Tennessee in terms of predicting how the Tennessee Supreme Court would rule in the Story v. Bunstine case.  (Admittedly though, I did flagrantly misspell Bunstine in the process back then.)

For the uninitiated, that whole “continuous representation” concept of tolling  just means that the mere fact that a lawyer continues to represent a client does not mean that the client’s time frame for filing suit over alleged legal malpractice does not start running.  For more than 20 years in Tennessee, the way we have dealt with the accrual of the cause of action involves application of the widely-familiar “discovery rule” approach.

For more than 20 years, our state has also operated under guidance providing that, if for some reason [for example, the potential that a mistake or misstep in the underlying action might be fixable and, thus, what seems like a very damaging outcome in the present could be the kind of situation in the future that everyone involved might laugh about] it is awkward to pursue the legal malpractice lawsuit while the lawyer is still trying to remedy the error, then the manner of addressing the situation is to file the legal malpractice action in a timely fashion (within 1 year of the problem) and ask the Court to stay that lawsuit until the underlying suit is completed.

Yesterday, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in Story v. Bunstine in which the plaintiff’s counsel explicitly asked the Court to undo that long-settled approach in favor of either the tolling for continuous representation or even the “appeal tolling” doctrine.  I am happy to report in this space that the Court — in a very well-written and thorough opinion, rejected those calls for change and re-affirmed the status quo as to accrual of a cause of action for legal malpractice.

If I had to pick one portion to be the simplest portion of Justice Page’s opinion for the Court that drives home what matters, I’d go with this one:

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that our formulation of the discovery rule articulated in Carvell v. Bottoms, 900 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1995), and again in John Kohl &
Co. P.C. v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998), remains the appropriate analysis for determining when a claim of legal malpractice accrues. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the two tolling doctrines proposed by Plaintiffs—the continuing
representation rule and the appeal-tolling doctrine—and also decline to hold that a final judgment is required before there is an actual injury for purposes of accrual.

You can read the full opinion, should you so desire, at the link set out above.

RPC 8.4(g) – Tennessee is in play

I’m pleased to report that, yesterday, a joint petition was filed by the Tennessee Bar Association and the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to adopt an RPC 8.4(g) patterned after the ABA Model Rule.

As I’ve written here in the past, I’ve long been hopeful (not necessarily optimistic but certainly hopeful) that states like mine would take action to enshrine a prohibition on harassment and discrimination into our ethics rules.

You can read the petition filed yesterday by clicking on this link: (filed_tsc_rule_8_rpc_8.4_g .)  As you’ll see, in my capacity as Chair of the TBA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, I am one of the signatories on the petition.  I am certain that there will be some public comments filed in opposition to the petition, but I’d like to think that the fact that both the TBA and the BPR are behind this effort will make it more viable for the Court to grant the petition even in the face of some opposition.

More importantly, as a matter of principle, I think the petition is one that should be granted because the proposed rule is a good and necessary one.

We’ve made some very good additional revisions to the ABA Model Rule in our drafting process — additional revisions that even more clearly help delineate that the kind of conduct prohibited by this proposed rule is conduct that has no place in our profession but does not go so far as to infringe on important First Amendment rights of lawyers.

We made two prominent, and I think important, revisions in the new comment paragraphs that would elaborate on the new (g) provision.  Exhibit B to the petition offers a redline showing how what we have proposed differs from the language of the ABA Model Rule, but I will lay them out here because of the significance.

First, we have added the following final sentence to Comment [4]:

Legitimate advocacy protected by Section (g) includes advocacy in any conduct related to the practice of the law, including circumstances where a lawyer is not representing a client and outside traditional settings where a lawyer act as an advocate, such as litigation.

Second,  we have added a Comment [4a] not found in the Model Rule, that provides:

Section (g) does not restrict any speech or conduct not related to the practice of law, including speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment.  Thus, a lawyer’s speech or conduct unrelated to the practice of law cannot violate this Section.

I anticipate that our Court will likely put this proposed rule change out for public comment before the end of the year.

“Boies will be boys was never a good response” or “Advance waivers are still better than unwanted advances”

(I’ve apologized once before for a Bullwinkle-style title and here I am doing it again.  The underlying societal issues are not funny in the least but it’s been a hard week for many folks and a little bit of levity can help you make it through.)

If you are inclined to read this blog from time to time, then you likely already have read or heard something about the mess David Boies has found himself in related to his firm’s simultaneous representation of The New York Times and his efforts to assist another client Harvey Weinstein in working with a black-ops style investigation outfit to try to stop an NYT story about Weinstein.

If you haven’t read anything about it, there is a wave of reporting to catch up on.  You can start with this ABA Journal article which gives easy jumping off points to this article in The Atlantic, and this The New York Times article, and this further ABA Journal article addressing additional issues after the NYT fired Boies’s firm.

The whole situation weaves a tale more than worthy of a law school essay exam question.  I could likely manage to spend the full three hours of the Ethics Roadshow talking about the ethics issues raised in the scenario.  (I probably won’t, but you’ll never know for sure unless you attend in one of the six cities where it will be taking place.)

While there are quite a few angles ripe for discussion, I just want to talk a bit today about the advanced waiver angle involved.  As most of the articles discuss, in addition to minimizing his role in assisting Weinstein, Boies pointed to language in his firm’s engagement letter with the NYT as authorizing certain conflicts in advance.

The topic of whether and when a lawyer can obtain an advanced waiver from a client to a future conflict is still a surprisingly controversial one in ethics and lawyering circles.  There are some who ardently fight for the position that no conflict can be waived in advance, even by sophisticated clients.  I don’t count myself among their number and, instead, believe that the availability of advance conflicts waivers is an important part of modern law practice from an ethics standpoint.  Along those lines, I believe that Tennessee, and other states that have language in a Comment to RPC 1.7 patterned after the Model Rules get the ethical guidance on the situation correct.

Tennessee’s Comment [22] to RPC 1.7, for example, explains how things generally should work when a lawyer requests a client to waive conflicts that might arise in the future:

The effectiveness of such waivers is generally determined by the extent to which the client reasonably understands the material risks that the waiver entails.  The more comprehensive the explanation provided to the client of the types of future representations that might arise and the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences of those representations, the greater the likelihood that the client will have the requisite understanding.  Thus, if the client agrees to consent to a particular type of conflict with which the client is already familiar, then the consent ordinarily will be effective with regard to that type of conflict.  If the consent is general and open-ended, then the consent ordinarily will be ineffective, because it is not reasonably likely that the client will have understood the material risks involved.  Nevertheless, if the client is an experienced user of the legal services involved and is reasonably informed regarding the risk that a conflict may arise, such consent to a future conflict is more likely to be effective, particularly if, e.g., the client is independently represented by other counsel in giving consent and the consent is limited to future conflicts unrelated to the subject matter of the representation.

This Boies/Weinstein/NYT saga, however, isn’t particularly all that helpful in terms of providing guidance into the question of whether any advance conflict waiver obtained by Boies complied with New York’s ethics rules, but it is extremely helpful in reminding that whether or not an advance conflict waiver passes muster under the ethics rules is just one aspect of the situation that lawyers and law firms need to keep in mind (and though it is a bit sacrilegious to say it might not always be the most weighty aspect of the situation).

The Boies/Weinstein/NYT saga is extremely helpful as a reminder that whether to take on a representation that can only be justified to another client on the basis of an advance waiver is extremely tricky as a business decision.

Boies’s firm included an advance waiver in its engagement letter with the NYT undoubtedly to try to maximize the number of clients it could have has now managed to lose both the NYT and Weinstein as clients.

The loss of Weinstein under all the circumstances might be a net positive, but the loss of the NYT likely stings and would have stung even if it hadn’t ended up managing to say this publicly in the process of cutting ties with Boies:

We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe. It is inexcusable and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies.

Whether or not an advance waiver is consistent with the ethics rules, an offended client can always still decide to drop the lawyer or his firm and what that mess might looks like if or when that comes to pass might be the most practical way for lawyers to think through these issues.

 

Frustrations with Formal Ethics Opinion 2017-F-164

Recently (and one of the frustrations I have with this opinion I am now writing about is, that “recently” is about as specific as I can pin things down in terms of the date of issuance), the Board of Professional Responsibility in Tennessee issued a Formal Ethics Opinion giving some guidance on the ability of a Tennessee lawyer to be a part of a multi-state law firm using a trade name.

It is, on the whole, an adequate ethics opinion in that it essentially gets the answers to the questions it raises correct, but it is more frustrating than it is adequate given how it addresses the issues and, as hinted at above, how it was surfaced by the Board as having even been issued.

First, here are my frustrations with the substance.  Here are the questions FEO 2017-F-164 tackles:

I. Do the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct allow a partnership between a Tennessee Professional Services Corporation and a Florida Professional Services Corporation?

II. Can the partnership ethically use a trade name?

III. Can the Florida office of the partnership ethically lease space from SETCO Services, a title company?

Admittedly, the Board gets the answers to each of these questions correct.  Those answers are, of course, “yes,” “yes,” and “yes.”  But the opinion does not do the best job of showing its work as to some of the answers, completely ignores the fact that the questions being answered also can’t be addressed without taking a look at Florida’s analogous ethics rules, and, as to the third question, misrepresents to an extent how RPC 5.7 actually works in Tennessee, appears to assume more facts beyond the facts indicated in the opinion.

As further background to understand my griping, here is the entirety of the facts provided by the Board about the request that has been directed to them:

The requesting lawyer proposes a 50%-50% partnership between a Tennessee Professional Services Corporation (PA) and a Florida Professional Services Corporation (PA) that will operate under a trade name, SETCO Law. The Florida PA will lease space from SETCO Services, a title company, for which the requesting lawyer is in-house counsel, in Destin, Florida. The Tennessee PA will lease space from another law firm, Brannon Law, located in Memphis, TN.

The proposed Firm will have a separate computer system, including secure email system, apart from SETCO Services and can only be accessed by employees of the Firm. The Firm will have its own logo which will be conspicuous within the building. All clients, before engagement with the Firm, will be provided with a written engagement letter that provides in detail that SETCO Law is an entity separate and apart from SETCO Services and Brannon Law and that engagement with the Firm is in no way tied to any affiliation with SETCO services or any services provided therefrom.

The first two questions are readily capable of dispatch under Tennessee’s rules given that we are very reasonable on questions of trade names and, of course, do not present any unreasonable barriers to lawyers being part of a multi-state law firm.  However, it is exceedingly unhelpful for this opinion to be issued and make no reference to the fact that a lawyer seeking guidance about the second question needs to take a look at Florida’s ethics rules as well and that makes no reference at all to the fact the lawyer ought to also be educated about RPC 8.5 and how that rule provides for choice of law determinations when more than one jurisdiction’s ethics rules may be applicable to the conduct of a lawyer.

The method of addressing the third question though presents the most frustrating piece from a substantive standpoint.  This is because the third question only asks whether or not the law firm’s Florida office can lease space from a title company.  The answer to that question is: of course they can.  The first paragraph of that part of the opinion gets the answer exactly right:

No ethical rules restrict the location of the office of a lawyer. Nothing prevents a lawyer from entering into a landlord-tenant relationship and having an office in the same building as a land title company.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop with those two sentences but instead offers further advice and guidance about RPC 5.7 with respect to law related services.  That advice and guidance is fine – in a vacuum but this opinion isn’t in a vacuum – but the opinion reads as certain things being mandatory in order to be able to lease the space, rather than being explained as being important in evaluating whether or not acts undertaken by a lawyer affiliated with the title company can be treated as providing services that are separately distinct from the delivery of legal services so that only some, but not all, of the Tennessee ethics rules apply to that conduct.  Nothing about RPC 5.7 requires a lawyer to do any of those things simply to be able to lease office space from someone.

And that would be bad enough but, again, the opinion completely overlooks or ignores that the office space lease question involves the office in Florida and so there is no compelling analysis given why it would be Tennessee’s RPC 5.7 that would govern at all, rather than Florida’s version of any such rule.

Having now unburdened myself on the substantive flaws, I’d like to offer a quick word about the frustrating problem with the process.  For whatever reason, the Board of Professional Responsibility did not publicize the issuance of this opinion until they happened to insert it in a regular quarterly publication that is a much larger document.  And even then what has been published is an unsigned, undated version of the opinion.  Seems very difficult to understand why that approach was undertaken.

Should you want to go read for yourself the undated, unsigned Formal Ethics Opinion 2017-f-164, you can do so at that link.

Perfect timing.

(Edited – Dec. 8, 2017 to fix very embarrassing mistakes as to the company name of Atrium.)

On the heels of my posting earlier this week about my failure to understand how the Atrium law firm backed by the Atrium tech company is something that complies with California’s ethics rules (much less ethics rules in other states besides D.C. that are based on the Model Rules should it attempt to expand as it plans), news comes now at the end of the week that one of the Big 4 accounting firms is launching its first law firm in the United States.

As this ABA Journal story explains, PwC is opening ILC Legal but, importantly for my discussion purposes, it is doing so in D.C.  As noted when I discussed the Atrium deal, D.C. is currently the only U.S. jurisdiction that permits the kind of non-lawyer ownership in a law firm that is prohibited everywhere else in the country.  Now, interestingly, the PwC spokesperson quoted in the story indicates that isn’t the reason D.C. was picked.  There may be many more details in the AmLaw story referenced by the ABA Journal but I am not a subscriber to that publication so I can’t get to it to read.  Not sure what details could be in there though that would change the fact that I’m skeptical that any structural separation PwC may have come up with for this law firm will comport with any ethics rules other than D.C.’s at this moment in time.

In my Atrium post, I asked readers to envision whether if a bank were doing what the tech company was doing, anyone would have any qualms at all about saying that it didn’t appear to comply in any way with the pertinent ethics rules.  I could just have easily used an accounting firm as an example instead of a bank.

So, bottom line for this Friday is, whatever your reaction might be to the PwC news (assuming it is one of concern), you ought to have the same – and even stronger — reaction to the Atrium situation.  Atrium isn’t even starting in D.C. where it could arguably be compliant.

(And, thanks to David Carr – a California ethics attorney – for the comment he posted to my earlier story with some further thoughts about the situation in California for Atrium.  Boiled down though, those thoughts seem to me to indicate that Atrium’s approach doesn’t comply with California’s rules as I suspected and that their only hope is that their own clients won’t complain about them and, apparently, that if anyone else does it won’t gain any traction with regulators.)

 

Things I don’t understand… Atrium LLP

You may, by now, have read an article or two about the launch of a “technology-focused law firm” by the name of Atrium LLP.  Its headquarters are in California.  Having now read several articles about it – and how it has come to be and how it will operate – I simply don’t understand it.

I get what a technology-focused law firm might be, of course.  What I don’t get is how in the world any of the lawyers involved with the venture can think that they can do this and comply with the ethics rules.

I kept reading more and more about it to figure out what I was missing that would not cause this arrangement to be a violation of the rules prohibiting sharing of fees with nonlawyers and prohibiting investment by non-lawyers in law firms.  I could still be missing the explanation, but I haven’t found it yet.

Here – through a series of snippets – is the situation as it has been reported.

Let’s start with information from an ABA Journal article as a base:

With $10.5 million, serial entrepreneur Justin Kan is about to take on Big Law….Atrium LLP will compliment, but is separate from, Atrium Legal Technology Services, also operated by Kan. Atrium LTS will develop the technologies and processes that automate repetitive tasks and manage the firm’s operations….While Kan is not an attorney, the firm’s founding partners are. Augie Rakow is a former partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, while Bebe Chueh is an attorney and founded AttorneyFee.com, which sold to LegalZoom in 2014. The other co-founder and Atrium LTS chief technology officer, Chris Smoak, is a serial entrepreneur and software engineer. Kan is the founder of live-streaming sites Justin.tv and Twitch.tv, selling the latter to Amazon for nearly $1 billion in 2014.

[snip]

While separate entities, the financial relationship between Atrium LTS and Atrium LLP is inextricable. Atrium LTS provided the firm a loan to cover all startup costs, and Atrium attorneys are being paid through options in Atrium LTS or a salary for advising the technology company.

[snip]

In June, Atrium LTS closed a Series A funding round worth $10.5 million, which was led by General Catalyst, a venture capital firm focused on early stage investments.

Let’s sprinkle in a few more salient details from Bob Ambrogi’s interview and post with affiliated folks at his Law Sites blog:

What is launching today is a law firm, Atrium LLP, that is separate and apart from Kan’s technology company Atrium LTS, but that is symbiotically connected to it. Atrium’s lawyers will focus exclusively on practicing law, while Atrium LTS (the LTS is for Legal Technology Services) will handle all operations for the firm, even including marketing, and develop and operate software to streamline the firm’s workflows.

[snip]

Atrium LTS is paying all the start-up costs for the law firm, structured as a loan. Atrium attorneys receive stock or options in Atrium LTS and some receive salaries from Atrium LTS for serving as advisors.

Now, a bit more from the Atrium website itself:

To solve this, Augie teamed up with successful lawyer-turned-entrepreneur Bebe Chueh to found Atrium, a technology-first law firm. They partnered with Justin and Chris Smoak to also create Legal Technology Services, a legal technology company with a world-class engineering team to build tools for that firm.

Strikingly absent from anything I have been able to find and read about the rollout of Atrium is how it isn’t just outright flouting California’s ethics rules that prohibit non-lawyer ownership in law firms and that prohibit people who aren’t lawyers from being partners in a law firms.  Although California does not yet have rules tracking the Model Rules in many areas (so they don’t for example have all of the provisions of ABA Model Rule 5.4), it does have Rule 1-310 that pretty much tracks Model Rule 5.4(b).

Rule 1-310 Forming a partnership With a Non-Lawyer

A member shall not form a partnership with a person who is not a lawyer if any of the activities of that partnership consist of the practice of law.

Discussion:

Rule 1-310 is not intended to govern members’ activities which cannot be considered to constitute the practice of law. It is intended solely to preclude a member from being involved in the practice of law with a person who is not a lawyer.

It also has a rule that imposes other restrictions on sharing fees with nonlawyers, Rule 1-320

Now, I noticed from one of the articles the idea that Atrium LTS (the tech company) is only “loaning” the start up costs to Atrium.  I mean there are lots of places where that concept seems vulnerable to analysis, but throw in the point that the way the attorneys for the Atrium law firm are getting paid is either stock or stock options in Atrium the tech company or salaries paid by Atrium the tech company for being advisors to the tech company and … just … come on. That really doesn’t pass any laugh test.  Does it?

So, really, what am I missing about this?  Assume the things being done by Atrium the tech company as part of launching Atrium the law firm were being done by an actual bank, wouldn’t everyone immediately recognize that the lawyers involved were violating the ethics rules?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge believer in the benefits of moving away from the billable hour and innovation in the delivery of legal services and embracing technology, but the Atrium model sounds very much like something that can only be done in California (or just about any other U.S. jurisdiction besides D.C.) if, first, the ethics rules are revised to permit it.

Is this just an effort by an entity with lots of resources to do it and dare someone to stop them?

“DoNotPay” Becomes HelpYouSue

I had another idea for a blogpost in mind at this stage of the week, but between travel and this story, this was the thing that had to be acknowledged today.  Yesterday’s big technology news for lawyers (sort of lost in the Apple event revealing a brand new version of what will likely become Ted Cruz’s new favorite device for viewing images he likes) is this story.

I’ve written a little bit in the past about the leading chatbot – DoNotPay.  This story  at The Washington Post details what will (I’m guessing) be something of a watershed moment in the development of the functionality of chatbots and what they can, and truly will, mean for lawyering in the near future.

In the wake of the Equifax data breach, the makers of DoNotPay launched a chatbot yesterday to allow people with just a few simple clicks to file suit in the small claims court in their home jurisdiction against Equifax over the data breach.

I usually like to think that I can add my own profound insight on an issue to make it worth reading over and above the underlying story.  Today though I’m going to primarily just point readers to the source material and then ask you to allow your own minds to ponder the possibilities this raises.  The Washington Post story was written at a time when the chatbot would only be available for suits in California and New York, but it was quickly modified to render availability nationwide, as explained in this Yahoo! article.

Once you’ve done that, check back in with me for just a moment or two.  I’ll wait right here.

Ok.  First, undoubtedly a lot of the people that will use this chatbot to file this suit would otherwise never take on this kind of matter at all.  For many others, if they pursued it at all, they wouldn’t ever hire a lawyer and would try to handle it themselves .  To that end, this is a net win in terms of access to justice (at least for everyone except Equifax).  (To the extent that these kinds of cases might get resolved before any class action suits that have already been filed and will be filed, they certainly might not be a net win for such class action lawyers.)

Second, the continuing development of chatbots in this direction will still leave plenty of work for lawyers (and create some work for lawyers that might not otherwise exist) – and not just in the form of lawyers who, for example, will show up to represent Equifax in thousands of small claims suits.

Part of this is because of the inherent differences that still exist from jurisdiction to jurisdiction over access to and proceedings in small claims court.

As one example, here in Tennessee our civil small claims court is called General Sessions Court.  There are a number of ways that it works differently from the general features described in the articles as to other states small claims courts.  We have a jurisdictional limit of under $25,000.  In our general sessions courts, you certainly are entitled to have a lawyer represent you in that court and, in fact, if you are a corporate or business entity of any kind seeking to pursue suit or defend suit, you have to be represented by an attorney.  Further, both parties to a general sessions judgment (even the prevailing party) have an absolute right to appeal the outcome and, if they do, it goes up to our regular state trial level court for de novo proceedings.  Thus, in a way, nothing that happens in our General Sessions court matters unless everyone involved agrees it mattered.

In addition to simply demonstrating how fast things are moving on these fronts, this evolution of the use of the DoNotPay bot also adds another wrinkle about how an attorney could at some point co-opt such technologies in situations where they may have a potential client with a looming timing issue in the form of a statute of limitations about to expire.  Specifically, it is not difficult to imagine a near future in which this kind of chatbot could permit the filing of suits involving other issues where a lawyer could point a brand new client -with a time sensitive matter- toward such a chatbot to get a suit filed before a statute expires and then come in, take over, and amend pleadings once the lawyer has more time to get involved.

A three-part discussion of LA County Bar Op. 528

Though news to me much more recently, the LA County Bar Ass’n Prof’l Responsibility and Ethics Committee issued an  interesting ethics opinion back in April on a wrinkle that can arise in the tripartite relationship created in insurance defense situations.  You can read the whole thing here, but its summary is pretty to-the-point:

When an attorney engaged by an insurance carrier to defend the interests of an insured obtains information that could provide a basis for the insurance carrier to deny coverage, the attorney is ethically prohibited from disclosing that information to the insurance carrier.  In such a situation, the attorney must withdraw from the representation.

In honor of it being an opinion that hinges on California’s approach to the tripartite relationship, I want to divide this post into a three-part discussion of it.

Part the first: it certainly appears to get the answer right from a California perspective.  The answers appear clear and correct given California’s approach to the question of who is/are the client(s) when an attorney is retained by an insurance company to represent an insured.  While all jurisdictions have reached agreement on using the term “tripartite relationship,” to describe insurance defense arrangements, California is a jurisdiction that treats it as truly being one in which the lawyer involved has two clients, both the insured and the insurance company, and the duties to each are “equal and potentially competing.”  Working from that premise, then the particular scenario confronted in the opinion is certainly one that causes the ultimate result — the lawyer  being prohibited from telling one client the important information learned about the other client’s situation can no longer represent either client and has to move to withdraw.  Though the specific scenario is presented in a way that raises some immediate questions given that it involves the existence of a document and its authentication through a request for admission.  For example, does the opinion just assume both authenticity and that the insured would tell the lawyer not to let the insurer know?

Part the second:  While that is the correct result given California’s approach to the “who is the client?” issue, the outcome is more revealing for serving to demonstrate the folly of the approach California follows.  In Tennessee, for example, the tripartite situation exists but the lawyer only has one client, the insured.  The insurance company hiring the lawyer to defend the insured is not a client of the lawyer.  There are, of course, still thorny ethical issues that can arise (see below) but at least in the scenario in question, the lawyer’s path forward is both clear and one that permits continued representation of the lawyer’s only client and a focused effort to try to use the document to establish the statute of limitations defense.

Part the third:  On the California side of things, what in the world happens next in the scenario to keep things from just playing out the same way all over again?  Because the withdrawing lawyer will not be in a position to tell the insurance company the reason for the withdrawal, the whole scenario is likely to simply repeat itself when the insurance company retains a new lawyer to represent the insured.  That lawyer will eventually learn of the same information – be prohibited from disclosing to the insurance company — and then lather, rinse, and repeat.  Or, at least, that’s how it will go unless either the lawyer shirks the duty of disclosure to the insurance company or the insurance company figures out what is going on that is causing the withdrawals and goes ahead and makes a definitive coverage decision.  Either way, it is a particular example that paints a much more favorable picture of approaches to this relationship structure in which the lawyer’s only client is the insured.

(In fairness, the particular scenario examined in the opinion could be pretty readily spun out just a bit further to demonstrate how no system for this would be perfect by exploring what would happen if the the insured was trying to demand that the lawyer attempt to settle the case for the insured without disclosing to the insurer that the reason for seeking settlement prior to having to respond to the request for admission was to avoid defeating coverage.)

On second thought, “this” is the least discussed ethics rule.

Many moons ago (look at me and my topical thinly-veiled 8/21/17 Eclipse reference), I wrote a post about Model Rule 2.1 being perhaps the least discussed ethics rule and why maybe it shouldn’t be.  But, a recent news item about a relatively humdrum topic, a relatively large multi-state law firm (Husch Blackwell) announcing that it has named a new CEO who is not lawyer, got me thinking about another ethics rule that much more likely is, hands-down, the least discussed ethics rule.  That rule is Model Rule 5.4(b)(2).  Unlike Rule 2.1 though, Rule 5.4(b)(2) is deservedly never made the subject of discussion because if it were paid attention to, then one of two things would be true.  Either it is an essentially meaningless rule or it’s a rule that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of lawyers throughout the U.S. violated by showing up to work today.

You probably might have some trouble thinking what the rule in question says so I’ll help you out.  It’s this one:

(d)  A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation.

We have this same language in Tennessee in our RPC 5.4(d)(2) and, odds are, you do too in whatever state where you happen to be reading this.  Now, if your law firm is organized as a corporation, then no worries under any circumstances because the “other than a corporation” language at the end there makes it clear that a corporation can have a nonlawyer in an officer position.

If you practice law in a firm that is organized as a professional limited liability company, or a limited liability partnership (for the record, Husch Blackwell happens to be an LLP) or some such similar entity, and you have someone – not a lawyer – in a position like a Chief Marketing Officer, or a Chief Financial Officer, or a Chief Operating Officer, or a CEO, then … well the existence of this rule is unfortunate, unless it can be said that none of those entities qualifies as a “form of association.”

If they don’t qualify, then what exactly is the purpose of this rule?  Why should only lawyers practicing in an “association of attorneys,” but not organized in one of these other formal business entity forms be prohibited from having a nonlawyer be an officer?

If such limited liability entities do qualify as associations under the rule, then what exactly is the reason for still having this rule on the books anywhere?  Particularly given that 5.4(d)(3) already effectively prohibits the actual harm by prohibiting practicing even in a firm that is a corporation if “a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.”

There are a significant number of firms these days that have someone who isn’t a lawyer serving in one of those roles managerial roles as an officer, and I’m certainly not aware of any instances of any bar regulator seeking discipline against lawyers practicing with those firms on that basis.  (For what it is worth the ABA’s Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct that I have handy [Sixth Edition] declares that “Rule 5.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from practicing in any for-profit entity in which a nonlawyer has an ownership interest, a position of responsibility, or a right to direct the lawyer’s professional judgment.”)

So, like I said, probably for the best that this is the least discussed rule.

Practicing law like it’s espionage. NYC Bar Formal Op. 2017-5

This week the New York City Bar has put out a very important, and I think very helpful, ethics opinion to address a real, practical concern for lawyers: what, if anything, can be done to protect confidential client information when traveling and crossing the border into the U.S.?

NY City Bar Formal Op. 2017-5 lays out the issue as follows:

An attorney traveling abroad with an electronic device (such as a smartphone, portable hard drive, USB “thumb drive,” or laptop) that contains clients’ confidential information plans to travel through a U.S. customs checkpoint or border crossing. During the crossing, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agent claiming lawful authority demands that the attorney “unlock” the
device and hand it to the agent so that it may be searched. The attorney has not obtained informed consent from each client whose information may be disclosed in this situation.

The opinion makes the point that with the change of administration such searches of travelers and their data has increased exponentially:

In recent years, searches of cell phones, laptop computers, and other electronic devices at border crossings into the U.S. have become increasingly frequent. According to the Department of Homeland Security, more than 5,000 devices were searched by
CBP agents in February 2017 alone. By way of comparison, that is about as many U.S. border searches of electronic devices as were undertaken in all of 2015, and just under a quarter of the
approximately 23,877 U.S. border searches of such devices undertaken in 2016.

The entirety of the opinion is worth a read to see how it offers its guidance about things a lawyer might do at the time of demanded search to protect client confidential information, and to hear its additional important message that lawyers have an obligation under RPC 1.4 to contact all affected clients after such a search takes place.

The aspect of it that I want to focus on, however, is to expand on some of the practical advice it offers as to things a lawyer could do before going through customs at the border to lower risk of disclosure.  Particularly, this passage:

The simplest option with the lowest risk is not to carry any confidential information across the border. One method of avoiding the electronic transportation of clients’ confidences involves using a blank “burner” phone or laptop, or otherwise removing confidential information from one’s carried device by deleting confidential files using software designed to securely delete information, turning off syncing of cloud services, signing out of web-based services, and/or uninstalling applications that provide local or remote access to confidential information prior
crossing to the border.  This is not to say that attorneys traveling with electronic devices must remove all electronically stored information. Some electronic information, including many
work-related emails, may contain no confidential information protected by Rule 1.6(a). Even when emails contain confidential information, the obligation to remove these emails from the
portable device before crossing the border depends on what is reasonable. As previously discussed, this turns on the ease or inconvenience of avoiding possession of confidential
information; the need to maintain access to the particular information and its sensitivity; the risk of a border inspection; and any other relevant considerations.

Now, as to that sentence about some work-related emails may not contain confidential information protected by RPC 1.6(a), it is worth remembering that New York has a different RPC 1.6(a) than most jurisdictions as it comes closer to retaining the old “confidences and secrets” regime.  In most other jurisdictions, where RPC 1.6(a) covers any information related to representation of a client, then it is difficult to imagine any work-related email involving client matters that wouldn’t be protected as confidential under RPC 1.6(a).

And, for that reason, when I’ve had to help people try to work through this question, my advice has been consistent with what the New York City opinion is saying albeit perhaps stated more succinctly – delete the mail application from your smart phone until you get through the border.  Then reinstall it.  As long as your work email is stored on a server somewhere, then you should have no loss of data at all.

The only inconvenience caused is that for the time between deleting it and crossing through the border, you will have no access to email. Using the balancing factors compared to the risk of the violation of client confidences, this seems like a small inconvenience.  Simply deleting the mail application for a period of time also has the benefit of not placing the lawyer in the position of trying to “reason” with customs officials and argue with them over whether they need to be doing what they are doing.

As to other kinds of electronic data, the solutions are not as simple as with email.  Text messages are particularly concerning as deleting those or removing access to those from your device for even a short period of time would result in the loss of that data.  Generally speaking, the New York City opinion does a good job at explaining some of a lawyer’s options.  One option that the opinion doesn’t exactly spend a lot of time discussing is obtaining the consent of clients in advance.  One potential way of doing so could be standardizing provisions into engagement letters with clients to address this topic.

This unfortunately appears to be a topic that will only become more difficult to deal with for lawyers who travel frequently.  As an example, within the last month there have been stories in the media that Homeland Security is contemplating requiring all reading material be removed from carry on and put in bins for the purpose of potential review by TSA agents.  Travel is already a stressful endeavor, but as a lawyer if that were to come to pass there would be almost no way to take anything on a flight to have or review without running a real risk of loss of client confidentiality.