A weird-ish ethics opinion out of New York.

I have written a few times about the ABA’s adoption of a new Model Rule 8.4(g).  One point that was brought up in the run-up to that rule actually finally being adopted was that some more than 20 jurisdictions already had an anti-discrimination rule in place in the black letter of their rules in one form or another.

One of those jurisdictions is New York, and the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics issued an ethics opinion back in January of this year that says it addresses an interpretation of NY’s Rule 8.4(g) and whether it prohibits a lawyer from refusing to accept a representation because of a lawyer’s own religious affiliation.

Specifically, the scenario addressed in NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1111 is this:

A lawyer has been requested to represent a person desiring to bring a childhood sex abuse claim against a religious institution.  The lawyer is of the same religion as the institution against which the claim is to be made.  Because of this religious affiliation, the lawyer is unwilling to represent the claimant against the institution.

The opinion, ultimately, doesn’t really answer the question of whether refusal to accept under those facts would be illegal discrimination.  Instead, the opinion first provides reassurance (at least of the rhetorical variety) that lawyers do not have any ethical obligation to accept every request for representation that they receive.  Then, though, it mostly punts on how to reconcile that fact with the fact that lawyers cannot engage in conduct that would violate a federal, state, or local anti-discrimination statute.  The opinion references New York case law which addresses certain kinds of professional services as being “place[s] of public accommodation” and directly admits that New York’s 8.4(g) contains language acknowledging that law could limit a lawyer’s ability to freely choose to decline a representation, but, despite the fact that the very rule itself that New York chose to adopt requires for its enforcement a conclusion about “unlawful discrimination,” just punts on whether the facts trigger such a conclusion.

At some level I get why the opinion goes that route as typically bodies providing ethics opinion have refrained from ruling on questions of law as being outside the scope of the rules.  But it does seem to me like once you adopt a rule that envelops the need for such a legal determination into the enforcement of the rule, you lose some of the ability to credibly punt on such an issue.

For context, here is the language of the rule New York has in place providing that a lawyer shall not:

(g) unlawfully discriminate in the practice of law, including in hiring, promoting or otherwise determining conditions of employment on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital status or sexual orientation. Where there is a tribunal with jurisdiction to hear a complaint, if timely brought, other than a Departmental Disciplinary Committee, a complaint based on unlawful discrimination shall be brought before such tribunal in the first instance. A certified copy of a determination by such a tribunal, which has become final and enforceable and as to which the right to judicial or appellate review has been exhausted, finding that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice shall constitute prima facie evidence of professional misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding….

For what it is worth, you would think that the body issuing the opinion could — at least on this particular inquiry – have been able to comfortably say that since the facts presented did not even involve a lawyer turning down a potential client because of the potential client’s religious affiliation that it would be safe to say that it is highly, highly unlikely that a credible case of unlawful discrimination could be made out against the lawyer.

One thing that this opinion does help sharpen in terms of a salient point is that ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) appears to be a better drafted approach to this issue given its explicit terms protecting decisions on whether to take on the representation of a client.  Unlike the New York version of the rule, the ABA Model — in addition to not having all the language about the need for a ruling by a tribunal to be a condition precedent in certain instances — includes this sentence in the black-letter of the rule:  “This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.”

Jurisdictions adopting a version of Rule 8.4(g) with that kind of language would appear to be much better positioned to actually address questions like the one raised in the New York opinion by providing the lawyer with assurance about the ability to simply choose not to take on the representation of a client where doing so would require them to sue their own church.

 

Arkansas and Wisconsin weigh in on client files in different ways and on different sides.

The need for clarity with respect to what makes up the “client file” has been an issue I have tried to stay up to date on dating back to our unsuccessful efforts back in 2009 to convince the Tennessee Supreme Court to adopt a rule – what would have been RPC 1.19 — to address the issues.  As I’ve explained before, our unsuccessful RPC 1.19 was patterned largely after North Dakota’s Rule 1.19.  There is no ABA Model Rule addressing client files and, as recently as last year, the ABA’s guidance as to client files still leaves many questions open so states navigate these waters pretty much on their own using only the language about lawyers’ obligations to “surrender papers and property of the client” in their versions of Model Rule 1.16.

As you may recall from a couple of posts I wrote last year, some seven years later we’ve obtained some real clarity in Tennessee on a few fronts as to client files through two Formal Ethics Opinions issued by our Board of Professional Responsibility.  Particularly, we now have clear guidance that we are an “entire file” jurisdiction rather than an “end product” jurisdiction regarding what are the contents of the client file.

Late last year, Arkansas adopted its own RPC 1.19 addressing client file issues but although they went with an approach that adopts a black letter rule to address the matter, they’ve gone in the opposite direction from us as Arkansas RPC 1.19 opts for an “end product” approach.  Technically, Arkansas has been an “end product” jurisdiction for more than seven years dating back to a 2009 opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court – Travis v. Committee on Professional Conduct.  You can read the Arkansas Supreme Court order with the full text of RPC 1.19 and its comments here.

The architecture of this new Arkansas rule tackles client file questions in two parts.

RPC 1.19(a) defines what makes up the contents of the client file both positively [(a)(1) identifies items that are in] and negatively [(a)(2) identifies items that are excluded] .  The most important exceptions being “the lawyer’s work product,” “internal memoranda,” and “legal research” materials.  It appears though that (a)(2)(E) serves to override any attempt to view (a)(1) as a comprehensive identification of what is included as that subpart explains that anything that isn’t listed as excluded in (a)(2)(A-D) are things that “shall be considered to be part of the client file to which the client is entitled.”  RPC 1.19(a) also addresses the need to honor requests by the client for delivery of file and when a lawyer may charge costs of copying or retain a copy for their own purposes.  Smartly, the rule also expressly clarifies that a lawyer and client can address all of those issues regarding copy costs and delivery costs in a fashion they prefer by contract as part of the engagement agreement.

RPC 1.19(b) addresses the length of the obligation to retain client file records and under what circumstances a lawyer can destroy client files in his possession.  Five years is the default length of time chosen for retention in Arkansas, and any time after that the lawyer is free to destroy the file materials.  RPC 1.19(b)(3) also makes clear that these time frames can be varied by contract between attorney and client.  RPC 1.19(b)(4) takes certain criminal matters out of the general rules of retention and destruction, however, and instead requires the lawyer to maintain the client’s file for the life of the client in those particular situations.

Another jurisdiction has weighed in recently but differs from what Arkansas has done both structurally and substantively.  Wisconsin recently put out an ethics opinion to further clarify the obligations lawyers have to clients in terms of turning over files at the end of the representation.  Wisconsin, like Pennsylvania, denies public access to its ethics opinions, but you can read a well-written article about Wisconsin Formal Ethics Op. EF-16-03 here.

The primary focus of the formal opinion appears to be clarifying that lawyers can neither try to leverage retaining the client file in order to obtain payment nor condition turning the file over upon the execution of a release of malpractice liability.  (Both things you might be surprised to hear about how often lawyers attempt to do despite the perils.)

But Wisconsin’s latest opinion on the subject matter also addresses some of the same vital issues that are at the heart of resolving situations involving disputes between attorneys and clients over who is entitled to what.  Unlike Arkansas, Wisconsin takes an approach more in keeping with the “entire file” approach to the question as several items carved out from the file in Arkansas are not in Wisconsin.  The Wisconsin opinion specifically identifies “legal research and drafts of documents that are relevant to the matter” as being included in the client file as well as “[a]ny materials for which the client has been billed, either directly or through lawyer or staff time.”

Yet, the Wisconsin opinion does limit certain categories of items as being allowed to be withheld from the client — including two items that were at the heart of the battles that doomed our effort in Tennessee to adopt an RPC 1.19 of our own — “materials containing information, which, if released, could endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the client or others,” and “materials that could be used to perpetrate a crime or fraud.”  Interestingly, however, the Wisconsin opinion also crafts an exclusion for materials that seems pretty antithetical to the idea that the guidance is really consistent with Wisconsin being an “entire file” jurisdiction:

Materials containing the lawyer’s assessment of the client, such as personal impressions and comments relating to the business of representing the client.  If a lawyer’s notes contain both factual information and personal impressions, the notes may be redacted or summarized to protect the interests of both the lawyer and the client.

The Wisconsin opinion also addresses the inability of the lawyer to hold the file hostage as a way to first receive payment and provides a clear answer that a lawyer cannot refuse to provide the entire file at the end of the representation based on an argument that lawyer provided everything to the client along the way during the life of the representation.  The Wisconsin opinion also offers insight on when the lawyer has to provide a client with an electronic copy of a file and stresses that while a lawyer can retain a copy of the file, the lawyer cannot charge for that expense because that is being done for the lawyer’s own benefit.

Another interesting wrinkle of the Wisconsin opinion is that it gives a nod to a scenario that is rarely discussed in such opinions — though it does come up in discussions of “red flags” of new client intake matters — but that is an exceedingly difficult situation to deal with:  “There may be unusual circumstances where a client has specifically instructed a lawyer not to surrender a file to a successor counsel, and the lawyer must abide by those instructions.”

In the end though, both the Wisconsin opinion and, in part, the Arkansas rule, offer guidance that furthers what ought to be the primary, practical guidance for lawyers given the disparities that exist on this issue from jurisdiction to jurisdiction — the more focus can be given to these issues in an engagement agreement such that you can have a contractual agreement between lawyer and client on just what will be provided, how, and when (and at whose cost) the better off all involved will be.

 

Two smart, practical ABA Ethics Opinions in a row. (And a bonus “beg to differ”.)

So, this week the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Op. 476 addressing the need to protect client confidentiality when a lawyer seeks to withdraw for reasons involving the client’s failure to pay.  As explained below, it is a solid, practical opinion touching on a subject often overlooked by lawyers who are just trying to get out of a case with as little additional wasted time and expense.

It comes on the heels of an opinion from earlier this month about a lawyer’s obligation to hold fees to be shared with a lawyer from another firm separate from the lawyer’s own funds, ABA Formal Op. 475, which — despite what this solo and small-firm centric blogger wrote recently — is also a practical, well-constructed, and correct opinion.  I have to beg to differ with the My Shingle piece because it misses the boat on the primary type of situation the ABA Formal Op. 475 is vital to addressing — where lawyers in different firms are sharing fees in a contingency case.  When you come at the question from that perspective as a starting point, the answer offered in the opinion is clearly the only answer that can be correctly offered.  The My Shingle complaints are readily resolved by simply working out a better front-end arrangement with a client about payment to multiple lawyers.

(N.B. – it can’t just be coincidence that these two opinions appear to be the first two in which my friend, Doug Richmond, shows up as a member of the committee involved in the issuance.  Doug is an excellent lawyer – as of course are all the lawyers on the committee — but Doug also has a flair for delivering practical advice through clear, straightforward written work product that leaves the reader with an abiding sense that the conclusion reached was inescapable.)

ABA Formal Op. 476 also does a nice job in tackling and acknowledging the interplay between trial court and lawyer in these circumstances.  The opinion truly can be well summed up if you lack the time or wherewithal to read it in full by simply quoting its “Conclusion,” section:

In moving to withdraw as counsel in a civil proceeding based on a client’s failure to pay fees, a lawyer must consider the duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 and seek to reconcile that duty with the court’s need for sufficient information upon which to rule on the motion.  Similarly, in entertaining such a motion, a judge should consider the right of the movant’s client to confidentiality.  This requires cooperation between lawyers and judges.  If required by the court to support the motion with facts relating to the representation, a lawyer may, pursuant to Rule 1.6(b)(5), disclose only such confidential information as is reasonably necessary for the court to make an informed decision on the motion.

As it stands, I really only have one item of criticism regarding Formal Op. 476 at all.  Yet it feels almost like nitpickery … in that I would have liked to see the opinion manage more clearly to stress that the need for protecting client confidences and discretion in any disclosure to a court regarding withdrawal applies to more withdrawal situations than merely not being paid.  Far too many times than I care to count have I been sitting in a courtroom and listened to a lawyer in the context of seeking withdrawal in some matter on the docket ahead of my case say too much, unprompted about their communications (or lack thereof) with the client.  The opinion says it is limiting itself to the deadbeat client situation because in other situations other rules and principles may apply, but I think there would have been value in exploring the commonalities.

The only other thing I’d like to use ABA Formal Op. 476 as a springboard to say involves highlighting an aspect of the rule we have here in Tennessee and how it provides a very helpful, practical mechanism for doing what the ABA Opinion actually encourages when it says:  “Of course, where practicable, a lawyer should first seek to persuade the client to take suitable action to remove the need for the lawyer’s disclosure.”  In the context of the ABA Formal Op. that would appear to be either: (1) pay the lawyer; (2) hire other counsel that can substitute in lieu of withdrawal, or perhaps (3) fire the lawyer so that withdrawal becomes mandatory.

In Tennessee, we offer another option as our RPC 1.16(b) also lists as a trigger for discretionary ability to withdraw merely that the client has provided informed consent confirmed in writing to withdrawal by the lawyer.  Such a clear escape valve in the rule permits a lawyer – even in a situation in which the client has become a deadbeat – to be able to counsel the client and explain that if the client will go ahead and provide informed consent to withdrawal, and show that consent by signing the motion itself, it can go an exceedingly long way in eliminating the risk that the lawyer will have to say anything about the client’s failure to pay in response to an inquiry from the court.

My 200th post: Living in a “post-fact” world?

So, not a milestone for some, but, for me, it feels like an achievement to have made it to my 200th post.  And because I’m a sucker for wordplay, I’ll use a “post” milestone to talk about an issue I’ve written about a good bit before but with a twist that also involves the word “post” but as a prefix.

If you’ve been paying attention at all to U.S. politics, you may have seen some discussion about how we seem to be living in a “post-fact” world and lots of accompanying criticism about how the media has played a large role in making it easy for prominent people to simply refuse to acknowledge facts and then inculcate beliefs in those who support them or identify with them that such facts are not actually facts.

Well, here’s something of an example — but in the world of legal ethics — of just how easily it is for that kind of thing to seem to happen.

So, in late October, the Montana Supreme Court put an order out for public comment about potentially adopting the new ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) addressing harassment and discrimination by lawyers in conduct related to the practice of law.  The Montana Supreme Court has floated adopting the entirety of the ABA Model Rule black-letter language such that if adopted, Montana’s 8.4(g):

would provide that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination 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 paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

You can read the Montana Supreme Court order here.  The deadline for public comments is actually today and, within the last few days, there was some publicity in Montana about the proposal.

This story is what has prompted me to write.  The reporter has included a quote from a law professor at a Montana law school who stakes out the position that the rule would suppress free speech and who is quoted as saying:

“There’s a wide variety of attorneys from a wide variety of backgrounds that are opposing this proposed rule, not necessarily on faith based reasons, but on the ability to ask questions in depositions and determining who should be seated on a jury. So it’s raised concerns amongst all types of attorneys.”

But, you might say to yourself, I just read that the proposed rule, if adopted, would have a sentence that says: “This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.”  And, also since you read the blog, it probably means you keep up enough with these issues to know that the ABA Model Rule, at least, has specific language in an accompanying comment even addressing peremptory challenges, but that even if Montana isn’t also looking at adopting the comments, as long as what the lawyer does in jury selection is “legitimate advocacy,” it ought to be protected.  Yet, the news article contains no push back against the law professor’s statement and not even a competing quote from someone saying the actual rule would raise no such issues.

How can that be?  Well, there is a fairly easy and revealing answer that is pertinent to a number of much larger issues going on in the world around us these days (in my opinion).  The news article, describing the rule for the public, merely says this about the content of the proposed rule:

Proposed rule 8.4 (g) states: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination 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.

So, the news report simply omits two of the sentences of the proposed rule including the one that contradicts the law professor’s stated concerns.  Thus, regular folks would have no idea of the rest of the content of the proposed rule when reading the story and certainly no reason to question why the law professor would be willing to make claims that appear to be contrary to clear language in the rule.

Sigh.

(And, if you are in Chattanooga or Knoxville, I’ll be doing those stops on the Ethics Roadshow next week and ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) is one of the topics on the menu for discussion.  It’s not too late to register and attend if you are so inclined.)

Bad ethics opinion or the worst ethics opinion? Tenn. FEO 2016-F-161 edition

I haven’t rolled a post out with this title in a while, but the more truthful title when it comes to an ethics opinion, issued here in Tennessee on September 9, 2016 would be: “More bad than worthless or more worthless than bad?”

First, the good news.  Tenn. Formal Ethics Op. 2016-F-161 is short.  It won’t take you but maybe five minutes to read it in full.  You’ll never get those 5 minutes back, but…

Now, the not-so-good news … Formal Ethics Opinion 2016-F-161 could have been a whole lot shorter, maybe only a paragraph — in fact, the first paragraph with the heading “OPINION” probably would have sufficed.  It states a premise that isn’t necessarily incorrect — a settlement agreement that would require an attorney to return work product violates RPC 5.6(b) if it restricts the lawyers ability to represent other clients– but it doesn’t do anything more than that.

To the extent it does, it isn’t exactly helpful because it works from a premise that doesn’t involve something that clearly involves work-product, and not surprisingly (given that it treats something as if it were work-product when that is less than clear) it doesn’t really explain why one thing might be okay and the other not.

If you were looking for a jumping off point to make the point that a demand for relinquishing work-product as part of a settlement agreement could violate RPC 5.6, I’m not sure this is the premise to pick:

Plaintiff’s counsel received from Defendant 541,927 pages in image form and had to electronically covert every single page to a pdf document.  Plaintiff’s counsel then processed the 541,927 pages with optical character recognition to make each document searchable.  The documents were then organized by relevant subtopics and incorporated into demonstrative exhibits.  Creating this work product was the only way to understand the complex issues in the case, articulated the product defects, depose experts, present claims, and ultimately reach a successful settlement for the client.  Plaintiff’s counsel relied on the produced materials to cut a full-size vehicle into parts for use in explaining complex engineering, vehicle dynamics, and safety mechanisms to the jury.  This demonstrative evidence is useless without the underlying work product.

In addition to the way in which that description reads like the inquiring attorney wrote it, did you catch the part there where things went askew?  Of course, you did.  It was that moment where they wrote “Creating this work product…” despite not having referenced any creation of work product.

What they described was the production of materials by the other side in discovery.  Converting TIFFs to PDFs doesn’t turn the other side’s document production into your work product.  OCR’ing those PDFs doesn’t do that either.  The incorporation of certain aspects of the discovery into demonstrative exhibits might rise to the level of the creation of work product, but the demonstrative exhibits would be the work product not the source material that was added to them as a component part.  But even giving the Board the benefit of doubt, the opinion doesn’t exactly tackle whether (or how) the request to return discovery materials also requires the return of additional things — work product — that incorporate parts of the discovery materials.

The opinion also doesn’t clearly indicate that the settlement agreement being examined requires anything to be returned besides discovery documents produced.  What is says is this: “The parties agreed on a settlement amount, and as a condition precedent to signing the settlement agreement Defendant demanded return of all documents produced….”  Now the opinion then says “… which included Plaintiff’s counsel’s work product,” but I don’t know how to take that because “documents produced” on its own wouldn’t support a reading that work-product must be returned.

Otherwise, the TN opinion to bolster the premise that requiring return of work product could be a problem spends a bit of time trying to (sort of) adopt the rationale of a North Dakota ethics opinion from 1997.  This part of that North Dakota opinion is fine: “Whether providing the opposing side access to or losing his or her own access to work product materials would restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients is a factual question the attorney must decide based on the documents involved and the facts and circumstances of the case.”

But, there is a key deficiency in the North Dakota opinion too , at least as described by the TN opinion, there is a seeming failure to recognize that if a client pays an attorney for work product the attorney creates, that work product also belongs to the client.  Remember, in this context RPC 1.16(d), which only provides the slimmest of windows for a lawyer to refuse to turn over work-product that a client hasn’t paid for, upon the termination of the representation.

So, when the Tennessee opinion quotes the North Dakota opinion to say: “Under 5.6(b) an attorney may not agree — even at a client’s request: To turn over to opposing party or counsel documents protected by the attorney work product doctrine if that action would restrict the attorney’s representation of other clients….,” it overlooks the fundamental concept that the client, not the attorney, makes the decision whether to settle a matter.  (RPC 1.2)  And, if the condition on settlement is that the attorney relinquish work product that now would belong to the client because the attorney’s fee will be paid, then… well, it’s pretty dangerous for an attorney to seek to blow up that settlement on the basis that the work product is the attorney’s alone to do with as she sees fit.

 

Another development on impaired lawyers, Virginia drafts an ethics opinion

Almost a year ago, I wrote a little bit about what was a first-of-its-kind rule adopted by South Carolina to address the obligations of lawyers in a law firm when a lawyer within their midst was becoming impaired as a result of aging.  South Carolina’s adoption of a new RPC 5.1(d) aimed at that specific situation was part of a package 3 court rules but the language of SC’s RPC 5.1(d) specifically provides:

(d) Partners and lawyers with comparable managerial authority who reasonably believe that a lawyer in the law firm may be suffering from a significant impairment of that lawyer’s cognitive function shall take action to address the concern with the lawyer and may seek assistance by reporting the circumstances of concern pursuant to Rule 428, SCACR.

I have admittedly not scoured the landscape since SC adopted that rule, but I am not aware of any jurisdiction that has acted similarly.

Earlier this month, Virginia put out for public comment a draft ethics opinion that, at least, touches on the issue of what lawyers are supposed to do in dealing with an aging lawyer on the decline.  The draft of Virginia’s LEO 1886, titled “Duty of Partners and Supervisory Lawyers in a Law Firm When Another Lawyer in the Firm Suffers from Significant Impairment,” can be viewed here.

The opinion offers two hypothetical situations – one involving an associate with a drug problem and the other involving a 60-year old lawyer suspected to be having declining mental faculties.  This hypothetical reads as follows:

George is a sixty-year old partner in a small, two lawyer firm.  He has been honored many times for his lifelong dedication to family law and his expertise in domestic violence protective order cases.  He has suffered a number of medical issues in the past several years and has been advised by his doctor to slow down, but George loves the pressure and excitement of being in the courtroom regularly.  Recently, Rachelle, his long-time law partner, has noticed some lapses of memory and confusion that are not at all typical for George.  He has started to forget her name, calling her Mary (his ex-wife’s name), and mixing up details of the many cases he is currently handling.  Rachelle is on very friendly terms with the [juvenile and domestic relations] court clerk, and has heard that George’s behavior in court is increasingly erratic and sometimes just plain odd.  Rachelle sees some other signs of what she thinks might be dementia in George, but hesitates to “diagnose” him and ruin his reputation as an extraordinarily dedicated attorney.  Maybe he will decide to retire before things get any worse, she hopes.

The overwhelming majority of the proposed VA opinion focuses however on impairment caused by drug or alcohol abuse – the other lengthy hypo set out in the proposed opinion.  This focus is likely because of the recent wave of publicity focusing upon the high rates of depression and substance abuse among members of our profession.  In fact, the proposed opinion right out of the gate references the 2016 report in the Journal of Addiction Medicine that reported that our rate was “2 to 3 times the general population.”  The opinion does a fine job in elaborating on that scenario, but it reads in the end as if it were treating the aging lawyer question as something of an afterthought.  In fact, the only specific guidance the opinion offers on the second hypothetical comes in its last 8 lines:

In the second hypothetical, it is not clear that George has committed any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Obviously, George’s impairment, unaccompanied by any professional misconduct, does not require any report to the bar under Rule 8.3(a).  Yet, his mental condition, as observed by his partner, Mary, would require that Mary make reasonable efforts to ensure that George does not violate his ethical obligations to his clients or violate any Rules of Professional Conduct.  This would include, as an initial step, Mary or someone else having a confidential and candid conversation with George about his condition and persuading him to seek evaluation and treatment.

Offering just this, and only this, as guidance is a bit of a shame given just how stark and troublesome the facts of the second hypothetical are and how heart-wrenching you could imagine the circumstances in the hypo being for Mary when we’re told they practice in just a two-lawyer firm.

Who exactly would be the “someone else” if not Mary in that situation who could have the confidential and candid conversation with George?  Admittedly, it isn’t quite ethics guidance but it would also be helpful for Virginia lawyers in the future role of Mary in the hypothetical to hear that how wrongheaded and counterproductive Mary’s thinking as to what might ruin George’s reputation is.  Mary’s act of confronting George privately about her concerns is not the thing that would “ruin his reputation as an extraordinarily dedicated attorney.”  Allowing the situation to go unaddressed is much more likely to lead to outcomes in cases — again when we are talking about a two lawyer firm where it simply isn’t possible to think that Mary can keep track of and cover for anything that goes wrong in George’s practice —  is the much more likely route to ruination of an otherwise stellar reputation.

It will be interesting to see whether the public comment period will result in Virginia trying to elaborate a bit more on the much more difficult of the two hypos.  Here’s hoping.

 

Today – Ethical Issues When Changing Law Firms.

There probably has been news this week about a set of departures of lawyers from one prominent firm to another or efforts that firms are taking to disincentivize their lawyers from taking their clients and moving on to a new destinaton.  As I indicated on Monday, I’m not actually around at the moment so this post was prepared and scheduled in advance so I won’t pretend that I’m doing anything other than guessing.  (As the McElroy Brothers would say, I’m sort of parting the kimono at this moment.)  But it is still that time of year, and just last week there were stories such as this one and this one and this one about such topics.

Today, if you are in any of the states where it is being broadcast today, including Alabama and North Carolina, you can sign up to hear me talk for an hour on Ethical Issues When Changing Law Firms.  In addition to getting necessary CLE credit, you’ll hear me discuss aspects of RPC 5.6 and RPC 1.16, as well as talk a bit about the relatively recent revisions to ABA Model Rule 1.6 to permit disclosure of client confidential information for purposes of running conflict checks when looking at making a lateral move.

Although in my practice I have advised and counseled both lawyers moving firms and firms being left behind, today’s seminar will have as its primary focus the perspective of a lawyer making a move and practical tips and approaches having an eye toward avoiding grass stains in your search for greener pastures.

A proposed ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) has been put out for public comment.

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (“SCEPR”) has put out a proposed new RPC 8.4(g) for public comment with a March 11, 2016 deadline for any written comments.  The proposed rule revision would add to the list of types of prohibited conduct in RPC 8.4 the following:

(g) in conduct related to the practice of law, harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.

Now, you might be asking yourself a number of things at this point.  The question that came to mind for me though was, aren’t there already other ethics rules sufficient to make harassing people for no good reason (including for discriminatory reasons) a disciplinary offense?  The answer to that question, I tend to think, is “yes.”  RPC 4.4 — which is entitled “Respect for the Rights of Third Persons” after all — prohibits a lawyer “in representing a client,” from “us[ing] means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass. . . or burden a third person.”  I would think that should already capture knowing sexual harassment or intentionally discriminatory conduct by a lawyer to an opposing party or opposing counsel or any other third party a lawyer has to deal with when representing a client.  Now I get that it wouldn’t capture anything a lawyer does when not representing a client, but that is when I would point to existing RPC 8.4(d) which prohibits engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and does not limit its proscription only to when a lawyer is representing a client.  SCEPR clearly though does not see treatment of the issue through existing RPC 8.4(d) as sufficient.

Existing Comment [3] to RPC 8.4 provides:

[3]  A lawyer who, in the course of representing a client, knowingly manifests, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status violated [RPC 8.4(d)] when such actions are prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors does not violate paragraph [d].

Now, setting aside the tautological circularity of the existing comment (which, of course, can be a bit “Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?), current RPC 8.4(d) certainly brings something to the table over and above what RPC 4.4 would prohibit.  So, comparing the current comment with the new proposal, my next question was: why not just add “gender identity” and “marital status” to the list in the existing comment and be done with it? there must be some type of conduct not currently prohibited by the rules which is trying to be captured.

The answer to that is clearly that there is a specific type of conduct, and venue in which such conduct occurs, that is trying to be captured by RPC 8.4(g) as proposed.  The revision to Comment [3] offered by SCEPR spells out what the primary purpose of the change seems to be:  “Paragraph (g) applies to conduct related to a lawyer’s practice of law, including the operation and management of a law firm or law practice.”  So, workplace harassment and discrimination appears to be the motivation.

The rest of the proposed new comment language focuses a good bit on providing assurances that legitimate advocacy is still acceptable and that this provision won’t mean that you can’t claim a right of permissive withdrawal under RPC 1.16(b) if a client insists on doing something that the lawyer finds “repugnant” and turning down a potential client because they cannot pay you doesn’t mean you’ve discriminated on the basis of socioeconomic status.

That seems to me like an awful lot of assurances to have to provide in a comment about things a rule doesn’t prohibit.  I could get behind having to do that, I guess (even if it does seem weirdly defensive), if I was able to buy in to the need for the revision itself.  But, I just don’t quite understand how it makes sense to do the very thing this revision appears to be attempting to do — turn employment law issues into disciplinary matters.  Maybe I’m missing something.

2 out of 3 ain’t bad – NC releases a threesome of ethics opinions on the same day

In a lot of jurisdictions, mine included, formal ethics opinions from the governing disciplinary body are issued, if not rarely, then on a “few and far between” kind of time frame.  In North Carolina, on October 23, 2015, 3 were released in one day.

Two of them provide overall good advice.  One of those two is particularly timely for lawyers given growing concerns about hacking and phishing concerns.  The other offers a very well-reasoned, and appropriately terse, approach to an ethics issue rarely made the subject of ethics opinions.  The third… well let’s hold off saying anything about the third until the end.

NC Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-6 addresses an array of questions that all emanate (more or less) from the same general scenario:  what are the professional responsibilities of a lawyer who, through no fault of his own, has been the victim of crime or fraud that depletes money in the trust account to a level in which all obligations can no longer be satisfied?  2015-6 is a pretty faithful application of the principles underlying RPC 5.1 and RPC 5.3 and reaches the conclusion, over and over again, that a lawyer who gets ripped off despite having in place reasonable measures to give reasonable assurance of compliance with the ethics rules by the other lawyers and nonlawyers in the firm, is not to be held responsible as an ethical matter for making payment of the amount lost as a result of the wrong doing of the third party.  The North Carolina State Bar stresses, as it should, that it is not opining about the potential for civil liability as between attorney and client (or third party who has entrusted funds in the attorney’s trust account) for the lost funds but is limiting itself just to questions of ethical responsibility.

The opinion gives what would serve as a good answer to almost all questions in this general area with its first answer — addressing a scenario where a third party has made counterfeit checks designed to look like they are for the lawyer’s trust account and used those checks to commit theft from the account:

If Lawyer has managed the trust account in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct… but, nevertheless, is victimized by a third party theft, Lawyer is not required to replace the stolen funds.  If, however, Lawyer failed to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct on trust accounting and supervision of staff, and the failure is the proximate cause of theft from the trust account, Lawyer may be professionally obligated to replace the stolen funds. . . .

Under all circumstances, Lawyer must promptly investigate the matter and take steps to prevent further thefts of entrusted funds.

The opinion essentially applies this same rubric to provide good answers to successive questions, such as whether the lawyer is liable if a hacker gains access to the lawyer’s computer system and causes an authorized electronic funds transfer to take place, and how the lawyer’s duty of reasonable care can require a lawyer to be wary of an email “spoofing” situation designed to result in causing the lawyer to think they are wiring funds to their client but actually wiring funds to someone else.  The opinion even offers practical guidance that, while perhaps not supportable under a strict reading of the ethics rules, makes good sense from a loss prevention standpoint and when we let ourselves remember that the ethics rules are rules of reason and should be construed as such.  Specifically, the opinion indicates that while the lawyer is pursuing and investigating other remedies for clients affected by a theft, the lawyer is permitted, despite the prohibition on commingling in RPC 1.15, to deposit his own funds into the trust account to replace stolen funds.

The second opinion, Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-7, addresses a variation of a question I’ve often been asked by lawyers: do “prior professional relationships” you’ve had outside of the practice of law count to permit in-person solicitation that would otherwise be prohibited by RPC 7.3?  The North Carolina State Bar explains that yes they do.  Specifically, the questioner in 2015-7 can so characterize her relationship with a health care professional someone with whom she developed a business relationship while working as a health care consultant.  In so doing, the opinion succinctly focuses on the heart of the issue — the reason justifying such a prohibition on in-person solicitation at all.   The prohibition exists to “prevent undue influence, intimidation, and over-reaching by the lawyer.”  Thus, certain types of prior relationships are exempted because it is considered “unlikely that a lawyer will engage in abusive practices” when they have those kinds of prior relationships.  The opinion acknowledges that the term “prior professional relationship” is “not limited to prior client-lawyer relationships” and finds the questioner’s situation to qualify.  (Historically, I have made this same point but more expansively by noting that the language of the rules knows how to say “former client” when it means to impose that limitation, as well as how to use other words that would carve out a more narrow exception than what is intended by “prior professional relationship.”

The third opinion, Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-5, actually gives the correct answer, but justifies its response using what I believe is clearly the wrong rule.  In so doing, it fails to even reference the rule that does justify the outcome.  The question the opinion addresses is:

Lawyer A is appointed to represent a criminal defendant in an appellate matter.  Subsequently, Lawyer A withdraws from the representation of the client and Lawyer B is appointed successor appellate counsel.

Must Lawyer A obtain the former client’s consent prior to discussing the client’s case with Lawyer B or prior to turning over the former client’s file to Lawyer B?

The opinion concludes that the answer is no — unless the client had previously specifically instructed Lawyer A to not speak with Lawyer B — but rests its conclusion on the concept that RPC 1.6(a) permits a lawyer to make disclosure of confidential information when “the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation.”  The problem, however, is that the question makes clear that the first lawyer has already withdrawn from representing the client.  Thus, from the first lawyer’s perspective, there is no representation to carry out much less any disclosure that can be argued to be impliedly authorized for the purpose of carrying out the representation.

There is a justification in the ethics rules for the answer “no.”  RPC 1.16(d) addresses steps a lawyer must still perform after the termination of a representation.  The NC version of the rule tracks the ABA Model Rule in stating generally that:  “Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests….”  In Tennessee, we make the utlility of RPC 1.16(d)  as the answer to this question more obvious by providing a numbered list of six items that may be included, depending on the circumstances, in “protecting the client’s interests.”  The third item being “cooperating with successor counsel engaged by the client.”  Yet, even without that specific language, the NC rule’s general requirement of taking reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interest  is a much more justifiable way of validating the answer to the question presented in Formal Ethics Opinion 2015-5.

South Carolina adopts first of its kind* rule on cognitive impairment.

My paternal grandfather succumbed to Alzheimer’s disease.  As someone who makes a living (such as it is) using his mind (and is pretty certain that he could not feed his family if forced to use his hands for a living), the loss of my mental faculties is one of my greatest fears.  In that regard, I suspect I am quite like a plethora of other lawyers throughout the United States.

Dealing with lawyers on the tail end of their career, and any declining mental acuity that inevitably accompanies the aging process for many human beings, is a troubling issue for law firms of any size, but particularly for smaller firms.  I’m moderating a panel at the AON Law Firm Risk Symposium in Phoenix in October that will be focusing on the ethics, employment, and loss prevention issues associated with the “graying” of the profession.

For all of these reasons, a development out of South Carolina this week is particularly noteworthy to me.  The South Carolina Supreme Court has adopted what, to my knowledge, is a first of its kind (and the reason for the asterisk in the title is that it is possible there is a rule out there like this somewhere but I’m entirely unaware of it) package of rules focused on the issue of lawyers and the onset of “cognitive impairment.”  The measures adopted by South Carolina in this order dated August 24 do three separate, but obviously interrelated things.

First, SC established a new rule, SCACR 428 entitled “Intervention to Protect Clients,” giving authority for the Executive Director of the South Carolina Bar — SC has a unified bar association so that person, unlike say in Tennessee, is a government actor (an important distinction as I discussed in another context here) — to be able, upon receipt of information from someone “expressing concern about cognitive impairment of another lawyer” to appoint “Attorneys to Intervene,” who would in turn have the authority to attempt to meet with the lawyer in question and potentially propose a course of conduct, including actions such as making referral to the “Commission on Lawyer Conduct.”

Second, SC revised its RPC 5.1 to add a new subsection:

(d) Partners and lawyers with comparable managerial authority who reasonably believe that a lawyer in the law firm may be suffering from a significant impairment of that lawyer’s cognitive function shall take action to address the concern with the lawyer and may seek assistance by reporting the circumstances of concern pursuant to Rule 428, SCACR.

Along with that subsection, a new Comment [9] was adopted stressing that the new rule “expresses a principle of responsibility to the clients of the law firm.”

Third, SC imposed an ethical obligation upon judges to take certain steps when they reach a conclusion that a lawyer practicing before them is suffering from this kind of measurable mental decline through adoption of a new Rule 501(G) in the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Whether this will be the start of a trend among states remains to be seen.  It is worth noting that whether specialized rules are adopted or not, in jurisdictions tracking the ABA Model Rules, there are ethical rules already implicated by the situation, not just for the lawyer whose skills are waning, but also for those lawyers who practice with him in a firm or even as co-counsel.  It is, for example, not much of a stretch to read the duties owed by lawyers under RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4, RPC 1.16(a), and RPC 5.1(b) and (c) to perhaps have obligations roughly similar to the new obligations being delineated in South Carolina’s RPC 5.1(d).

It is also well worth keeping in mind that given the economic climate — both market calamities several years ago and things that seem like current market calamities — there is no reason to think that the phenomenon of aging lawyers being reluctant to retire is likely to go away any time soon.  Thus, whether jurisdictions seek to carve out specialized requirements and rules as has South Carolina or not, I feel pretty safe saying these issues will continue to challenge lawyers and law firms for the rest of my lifetime.