More of me weighing in on Oregon weighing in on the future

For those that missed my post earlier this week on the release of the Oregon State Bar Futures Task Force report, you can read that post here and get caught up.

Today, I want to offer some thoughts on one of the three Recommendations made by the Regulatory Committee of the Futures Task Force.  It is likely the most important of the Recommendations but certain to be the most controversial as well.

Recommendation 2: Revise Rules of Professional Conduct to Remove Barriers to Innovation.

This recommendation is comprised of four parts.  I’ll list them in the order they are presented, even though that is not the order in which I want to discuss them.

2.1  Amend current advertising rules to allow in-person or real-time electronic solicitation, with limited exceptions.

2.2  Amend current fee-sharing rules to allow fee sharing between lawyers and lawyer referral services, with appropriate disclosure to clients.

2.3  Amend current fee-sharing and partnership rules to allow participation by licensed paraprofessionals.

2.4  Clarify that providing access to web-based intelligent software that allows consumers to create custom legal documents is not the practice of law.

Now, that third sub-part creates a spoiler for another of the three Regulatory Committee recommendations – Implement Legal Paraprofessional Licensure.  Given the way those programs have played out to date in a number of other jurisdictions, I don’t think that is going to do much to turn any tides, so for now I’m going to pass on discussing it.  (If you want to delve into it, you can read all of thoughts of the Futures Task Force on that subject and the entirety of the 90+ page report behind the Executive Summary here.)

The fourth one – making clear that certain software programs that let someone through self-help generate customized legal documents — is a perfectly fine idea and, in this day and age, seems very difficult to argue against.  With each passing day, the notion that there are certain legal problems that states cannot allow be served through software programs that do for certain legal problems what tax return software programs do for income taxes seems harder and harder to justify.  But, I’m not sure that such a clarification is what is standing between better access to legal services for consumers and where things are today.  I tend to think that, in part, because those services already exist and are in pretty wide use because companies already make them available and consumers already use them.

The first one about changes to the advertising rules is most certainly a provision I would support (and have supported in past posts).  Virginia has just done something similar with its recent rule revisions.  But again, I don’t know that this change would be something that, as a response or solution to trying to improve public access to legal services, will make any real difference.  Why do I say that?  It is currently not at all very difficult to create an online platform in which it is the consumers that make the first communication effort so that lawyers can respond to it rather than initiate it.  As long as that is true, then lawyer advertising rules prohibiting solicitation do not present any barrier at all to getting consumers in need of legal services and lawyers with the time and ability to provide the services together.

That leaves the second subpart.  And that is the one where I suggest, respectfully, all the marbles are located for lawyers.

The notion of changing the ethics rules to allow lawyers to share fees in a particular matter with nonlawyers, as long as there is full, appropriate disclosure to the consumer of what is taking place.

The specific proposal Oregon’s Task Force has offered is for its current RPC 5.4(a)(5) that only references bar-sponsored or not-for-profit referral services to be revised to read instead as follows:

(a)  A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that

***

(5) a lawyer may pay the usual charges of a lawyer-referral service, including sharing legal fees with the service, only if:

(i) the lawyer communicates to the client in writing at the outset of the representation the amount of the charge and the manner of its calculation, and

(ii) the total fee for legal services rendered to the client combined with the amount of the charge would not be a clearly excessive fee pursuant to Rule 1.5 if it were solely a fee for legal services, including fees calculated as a percentage of legal fees received by the lawyer from a referral.

That is an action that would, overnight, make pretty much every technological innovation already available (or even conceivable) viable for lawyers to participate in as a way of delivering legal services to consumers and businesses.  It would also allow many existing operators in the legal space to spend less time on trying to come up with workarounds about not being engaged in making referrals in their business model to try to assuage concerns that lawyers who use their platforms will be the subject of disciplinary complaints.

In short, that recommendation appears to me to the one that must be discussed and debated and decided on before any evaluation can be made about what any of the other ones might mean or accomplish.

If Oregon follows through, it seems difficult to speculate that one or more other states won’t follow.  And, if the experience of those states shows that full disclosure of the sharing arrangement, plus compliance with the other ethics rules requiring exercise of independent professional judgment and not allowing interference with that judgment, then it will seem very difficult for any jurisdiction to argue against doing the same.

It is inherently a controversial topic because the prohibition against fee sharing with nonlawyers is viewed by many as a bedrock principle of our profession.  But — if the underlying premise of that bedrock principle is restated as preserving the independent professional judgment of lawyers from undue influence by others — then the Oregon proposal that would allow fee sharing, require fulsome disclosure to the consumer involved about that arrangement could still readily be expected to serve that bedrock principle and protect consumers while benefiting consumers because – though not highlighted in the Report, RPC 5.4(c) would still be in force as well.

(c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who
recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render
legal services for another to direct or regulate the
lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal
services.

Existing models of the online approach to pairing lawyers and consumers in need of legal services could almost all be placed into this bucket and, thus, lawyers using these services would still have maintain their independent professional judgment and refuse and resist efforts to compromise it.

The Future of Legal Services – Oregon weighs in

I was given an opportunity to provide a Legislative Update piece in the Spring 2017 issue of TortSource a publication of the ABA Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section.  The focus of the Spring 2017 issue is “Evolving Legal Markets” and, although the authorship is Tennessee-heavy, I think you will find all the articles to be worth a read if you can get access.  There is a piece on artificial intelligence, a piece on consumer-facing legal services provided by non-lawyers, a piece on predictive coding, and one on online dispute resolution.

My piece focuses on questions of UPL and responses by states to challenges posed by the companies that compete with lawyers for clients and I’ll share with you the conclusion section:

Other jurisdictions may choose to take more strident approaches, but it would appear that the best path forward for leveling the playing field for lawyers is to seek the adoption of regulations that will require companies providing such legal services to consumers to adhere to the same ethics rules as lawyers. The ABA’s Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services (A.B.A. Resolution 105, Feb. 2016) provide one template for states to consider to pursue such a path forward.

That conclusion feels more prescient than it truly was because, this past week, the Oregon State Bar Futures Task Force issued its report on the Future of Legal Services in Oregon.   Oregon is often discussed a rainy part of the U.S., and the volume of materials provided as the end product of the Futures Task Force is something of a deluge — the Executive Summary alone spans 15 pages of material.  You can read the Executive Summary here.

There is so much content of note in the work the OSB Futures Task Force has performed that I foresee spending a few posts discussing aspects of it, but today I want to start with a discussion of the findings of one of the two committees that made up the task force.

But even before discussing those two items, some background about the Futures Task Force and about the structure of the report and recommendations is in order.  First, the origin of the task force itself:

In April 2016, the OSB Board of Governors convened a Futures Task Force with the following charge:

“Examine how the Oregon State Bar can best protect the public          and support lawyers’ professional development in the face of            the public evolution of the manner in which legal services are            obtained and delivered.  Such changes have been spurred by              the blurring of traditional jurisdictional borders, the                            introduction of new models for regulating legal services and              educating legal professionals, dynamic public expectations                about how to seek and obtain affordable legal services, and                technological innovations that expand the ability to offer legal          services in dramatically different and financially viable ways.”

Second, the first step that was pursued as to the Task Force once created:

The Board split the Futures Task Force into two committees: a Legal Innovations Committee, focused on the tools and models required for a modern legal practice, and a Regulatory Committee, focused on how to best regulate and protect the public in light of the changing legal services market.

The end result was that the Regulatory Committee has made three recommendations and the Legal Innovations Committee has made five recommendations.  I plan to definitely write further, and in more detail, about the Regulatory Committee recommendations.

But, as indicated, for now I just want to talk about the findings made by one of the two committees, the Regulatory Committee.  I want to focus on them because, I think, they reveal just how universal the situation is that is faced in U.S. jurisdictions and, in turn, this means that the work product of this Oregon group has obvious potential application as a road map for action just about anywhere.  The Regulatory Committee made these nine findings:

  1. Oregonians need legal advice and legal services to successfully resolve problems and to access the courts.
  2. Consumers are increasingly unwilling or unable to engage traditional full-service legal representation.
  3. A significant number of self-represented litigants choose not to hire lawyers, even though they could afford to do so.
  4. Self-help resources are crucial and must be improved, even as we take steps to make professional legal services more accessible.
  5. Subsidized and free legal services, including legal aid and pro bono representation, are a key part of solving the access-to-justice gap, but they remain inadequate to meet all of the civil legal needs of low-income Oregonians.
  6. Despite the existence of numerous under- and unemployed lawyers, the supply of legal talent is not being matched with the need.
  7. Oregonians’ lack of access to legal advice and services leads to unfair outcomes, enlarges the access-to-justice gap, and generates public distrust in the justice system.
  8. For-profit online service providers are rapidly developing new models for delivering legal services to meet consumer demand.
  9. To fully serve the Bar’s mission of promoting respect for the rule of law, improving the quality of legal services, and increasing access to justice, we must allow and encourage the development of alternate models of legal service delivery to better meet the needs of Oregonians.

The question I would leave you with today is:  any reason at all to think that the first 8 items described would be any different if the discussion was about your state and its consumers rather than Oregon and Oregonians?  And, if not, then how could you think that the item identified in 9 isn’t something that your state is going to have to pursue as well?

 

Go read this other stuff.

In a little over 2 years and out of 244 prior posts, this is only the second time I have done this, so I don’t feel incredibly bad.  Though I admittedly do feel somewhat bad.  But try as I have to find something this week that I had to say that was worth writing about and on-topic, I’ve been unable to do so.

Thus, if you happen to be checking here for worthwhile content, let me point you to 4 pieces written by other very intelligent folks that are truly worth your time.

First, following very quickly on the heels of Ravel Law’s announcement about one of its new offerings (which I did write about), it was announced that LexisNexis is buying Ravel Law.  Bob Ambrogi has written about how significant a development this is and you can read that here.

Second, although it is now a two-week old piece, the fine folks at The Law for Lawyers Today  have a really good post on yet another instance of a litigator crossing lines during a deposition into obstruction and why that continues to be such a bad idea for litigators.

Third, a circumstance in Tennessee has gotten a high-enough profile to be written about on Above The Law and you can go read about it here.  I don’t want to say too much about it at the moment, not because I have any involvement in the matter, but because a petition seeking a rule change has also been filed with the Tennessee Supreme Court and the TBA Ethics Committee that I chair will likely be looking that over and offering input.  (If you happen to be a subscriber to The Nashville Post, you can read article about the rule petition here.)

And, finally, Mike McCabe over at his blog has a very nice piece up reminding IP lawyers about how important it is to abide by protective orders in IP cases – though the reminder is just as valid to lawyers in other litigation practice areas.

Virginia’s revised lawyer advertising rules – big win for APRL’s effort to streamline the advertising rules

[In the interest of full disclosure for those who might be new here, I am presently a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL).]

For those who aren’t new here, you know full well my personal opinion on lawyer advertising and what the ethics rules should and should not try to do in terms of regulation.

Unsurprisingly then, I was pleased to learn of Virginia’s decision to adopt new lawyer advertising rules effective July 1, 2017 and to learn that they largely do the kinds of things that APRL has been advocating should be the approach to these issues through proposed revisions to the ABA Model Rules.

You can go read the order entered by the Supreme Court of Virginia earlier this week that lays out the full text of what will now be its only rules in the 7.1 through 7.5 series, Rules 7.1 and 7.3 and accompanying Comments that will become effective July 1, 2017, but here are a few highlights:

  • Rule 7.1 will read in its entirety: “A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.  A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”
  • Rule 7.2 has been deleted and instead any issues that it used to address are now addressed, if at all, in paragraphs of the Comment to Rule 7.1.
  • One such Comment to Rule 7.1, [2], explicitly acknowledges that the right kind of disclaimer can cure something that might otherwise be argued to be “a statement that is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead the public.”
  • Another such Comment to Rule 7.1,, [4], explicitly acknowledges that someone could be a “specialist in a particular field of law by experience,” and that such a person can communicate that specialty as long it is not done in a way that is “false or misleading.”
  • Rule 7.3 addresses all aspects of targeted solicitations and also addresses the prohibitions on providing payment or things of value to someone for a recommendation or referral.
  • As to solicitation, Rule 7.3 makes clear that it applies only to communications that are “initiated” on the lawyer’s end.  And, appears to not attempt to prohibit in-person or real-time solicitation of clients.
  • Instead, it limits its outright prohibition on solicitation to situations where the solicitation is directed to someone who has made known to the lawyer they don’t want to be solicited or when the solicitation “involves harassment, undue influence, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats or unwarranted promises of benefits.”
  • It does contain a provision requiring an “ADVERTISING MATERIAL” disclaimer on “written, recorded or electronic solicitation[s]” but not if they are addressed to the universe of folks ABA Model Rule 7.3 has traditionally excluded from the in-person/real-time ban (other lawyers, family members, prior professional relationships, etc.)
  • Rules 7.4 and 7.5 are deleted altogether.

Kudos to the Virginia State Bar, the Supreme Court of Virginia.  One state down, 49 more (plus D.C.) to go.

North Carolina – Good intentions leading to a pretty seemingly bad rule.

So North Carolina has got quite a bit going on these days.  Last night UNC won the NCAA Men’s Basketball championship.  A few days ago, its general assembly kind of, sort of, repealed the bathroom bill that brought it much negative publicity and cost it some sporting events.  And, in March 2017, it adopted a first-of-its-kind ethics rule that seeks to require all lawyers — not just prosecutors — to reveal any evidence of the innocence of someone that comes into their possession after the person has been convicted.

Tennessee, I am proud to say, is among the “Sweet Sixteen” of other states that have adopted the ABA Model Rule 3.8(g) and (h) language that imposes this kind of duty upon prosecutors, but North Carolina’s act of going further to say that all attorneys have this obligation — at a mandatory level and when not doing so could somehow lead to discipline — seems very misguided to me.

Now because this is being written on the Internet, and because taking things out of context and ascribing intents and beliefs not intended to things written on the Internet is pretty much a sporting event itself these days, I feel beholden to make the point that — obviously I am not in favor of anyone being convicted of a crime they didn’t commit and I very much count myself in the category of folks who agree with the “it’s better that 10 guilty people be set free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned” line of thinking.  Also, I absolutely think that if an attorney comes across solid evidence that would indicate someone has been convicted of something they didn’t do, then an attorney ought to be encouraged to try to do something about that.

Nevertheless, I am not at all a fan of the idea of constructing an ethics rule that would require a lawyer to do so on pain of discipline.  Not even in the abstract because the architecture of such a rule would have to weigh in the balance too many other ethical obligations a lawyer might have that would compete.  I’m also not a fan of North Carolina’s specific effort to do so — North Carolina RPC 8.6 — which actually does attempt to  balance those competing obligations and in so doing, I think, actually proves the inherent pointlessness of this line of proposed rulemaking.

So, step by step, here is black-letter of North Carolina’s Rule 8.6.  The first paragraph establishes the initial scope of the duty.

(a) Subject to paragraph (b), when a lawyer knows of credible evidence or information, including evidence or information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6, that creates a reasonable likelihood that a defendant did not commit the offense for which the defendant was convicted, the lawyer shall promptly disclose that evidence or information to the prosecutorial authority for the jurisdiction in which the defendant was convicted and to North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services or, if appropriate, the federal public defender for the district of conviction.

So, as a starting point, this duty would override obligations of client confidentiality that would otherwise require a lawyer to remain quiet.  But obviously that creates some problems.  So, the next paragraph carves out exceptions to the obligation.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer shall not disclose evidence or information if:

(1) the evidence or information is protected from disclosure by law, court order, or 27 N.C. Admin. Code Ch. 1B §.0129;

(2) disclosure would criminally implicate a current or former client or otherwise substantially prejudice a current or former client’s interests; or

(3) disclosure would violate the attorney-client privilege applicable to communications between the lawyer and a current or former client.

So, the exceptions still do not allow Rule 1.6 concerns to prevent disclosure (unless, I guess, breaching certain 1.6 client confidences would be considered “otherwise substantially prejudic[ing] a current… client’s interests”), but the exceptions to protect the subset of Rule 1.6 communications that would also be protected as attorney-client privilege and protect a lawyer in the event that complying with Rule 8.6(a) would require them to put one of their own clients or former clients in jeopardy of criminal prosecution.  Thus, Rule 8.6(b) essentially makes certain that Rule 8.6(a) will not apply to the most reasonably likely scenarios in which any lawyer who isn’t a prosecutor is going to learn of information indicating that someone has been wrongfully convicted.

The next paragraph, for good measure, also provides the same kind of “good faith”/exercise of professional judgment safeguard in place for private lawyers that Rule 3.8 provides for prosecutors:

(c) A lawyer who in good faith concludes that information is not subject to disclosure under this rule does not violate the rule even if that conclusion is subsequently determined to be erroneous.

The final paragraph then proceeds to make clear that no duty to disclose arises when the lawyer knows that the right people essentially already know.

(d) This rule does not require disclosure if the lawyer knows an appropriate governmental authority, the convicted defendant, or the defendant’s lawyer already possesses the information.

So, in the end, and as Professor Bruce Green is quoted as saying in a few of the news articles about the development, “it carves out so much that it’s hard to known when it will apply.”  I think that’s a kinder way of saying:  Other than whatever encouraging effect it might have on some small set of lawyers who wouldn’t otherwise step up and do the right thing to let authorities know about something if doing so wouldn’t violate their duty to another client or former client, this rule is not really going to accomplish much and is probably largely unenforceable.

And while that encouraging effect might be a laudable goal, pursuing it through this kind of rule seems the wrong way to go about it.  If you are truly going to insist on something like this in a jurisdiction, it would be better pursued as a purely aspirational rule.  We already have one of those with respect to the obligation to do pro bono.

Another Tennessee-centric offering.

Using the term “Tennesentric” would probably be more efficient, but two items involving potential rule revisions relating to ethics and lawyering in Tennessee are worth briefly discussing.  One of the two has gone out for public comment and has a deadline, while the other has just been filed with the Court and does not.

I’ve written at length in the past about Tennessee’s effort at cleaning up some problems with comity admission standards and the extended amnesty period for certain folks in need of getting properly registered as in-house counsel.

Our Board of Law Examiners has recently filed a petition, which the Court has put out for public comment, to further extend the dates and deadlines for folks to have gotten into compliance in these areas.  Interestingly, the Petition seeks to extend the time period but not all the way up until the petition itself was filed, but rather has sought a cut-off period that would be December 31, 2016.  If enacted, the impact of this rule change would appear to be to make amnesty available to in-house counsel who did not get into compliance by July 2016 but who would have if the deadline for compliance was December 31, 2016 and to afford the Board with the same flexibility in making rulings on comity applications that were filed as late as December 31, 2016 but for which the Board didn’t rule – for obvious reasons – before the end of the year.  The deadline for public comments on that proposal is April 14, 2017.

The other proposal – which has not yet been put out for public comment —  is a filing by our Board of Professional Responsibility to clarify in our Rule 9 itself that the hearing in a disciplinary proceeding is public, unless a protective order is obtained.  This has long been the practice, but the rules presently do not exactly say that.  If this petition is granted, the result would be that the rules would bless the traditional practice.  But one even better benefit of this revision, if adopted, is important for cases of potential public and media interest, because this would make clear that the Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 30 Media Guidelines ought to govern media coverage of such proceedings.  Such a clarification would be important so that hearing panels in Tennessee understand that the attorneys of record in a case are entitled to know of a request for media coverage so that counsel can then proceed to make a timely motion to seek to prohibit such coverage under the terms of Rule 30.

Suffice it to say, this does not always happen.

You can read the BPR Petition Filed to Amend Tenn Sup Ct R 9 § 32 at the link.

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.

 

Tennessee has adopted the Ethics 20/20 changes effective immediately.

I’ve written a couple of times in the past about the status of the Tennessee Bar Association’s petition seeking to have the Tennessee Supreme Court adopt essentially all of the ABA Ethics 20/20 changes.  Yesterday, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an order doing just that – effective immediately — which now adds Tennessee to the list of jurisdictions that have adopted that package of ABA Model Rule changes focused on updating certain aspects of the rules to address technology and the role it plays in modern law practice.

I’m pleased to be able to report that as to the issues where our Board of Professional Responsibility had offered counter proposals to certain aspects that would both be contrary to the Ethics 20/20 language and for which the TBA expressed a level of disquietude with the proposals, the Court opted to stick with what the TBA was proposing.

You can read the Court order and the black-line of the changes made to those rules impacted at this link.  As a result of the order, effective immediately, Tennessee now has:

  • a definition of “writing” in RPC 1.0 that refers to “electronic communications” rather than just “e-mail”
  • paragraphs in the Comment to RPC 1.1 that provide more guidance about the need to obtain informed consent from a client before involving lawyers from outside the lawyer’s own firm in a client matter
  • language in the Comment to RPC 1.1 that makes clear that the lawyer’s duty to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice” includes “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology”
  • more modern language in the Comment to RPC 1.4 making clear that not just telephone calls from clients but all modern forms of communication by clients need to be responded to or acknowledged promptly
  • a specific discretionary exception to confidentiality under RPC 1.6(b) for disclosing information “to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in composition orr ownership of a firm”
  • black-letter treatment in RPC 1.6(d) of the duty to “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client”
  • a little clearer, and more focused, guidance in RPC 1.18 about what kinds of communications will suffice to trigger a lawyer’s obligations to someone as a prospective client
  • important distinctions described in the Comment to RPC 5.3 as to a lawyer’s supervisory obligations as to nonlawyer assistants within and outside of the lawyer’s firm
  • important guidance in the advertising rules about the appropriateness of working with certain companies providing lead-generation services

In addition to adopting the ABA Ethics 20/20 changes, the black-line materials also reflect some housekeeping revisions we had proposed to catch a few items that needed changing in terms of cross-references from other Tennessee Supreme Court rules that had changed over the last few years.

Dear ABA – Embrace reform of the lawyer advertising rules. Please.

I have written in the past about the APRL white papers providing the rationale for, and data supporting the need to, reform the way lawyer advertising is regulated in the United States by state bar entities.  You can read those prior posts here and here if you are so inclined.

Jayne Reardon, the Executive Director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, over at the 2Civility blog has posted a very thorough report on events that transpired in Miami earlier this month and that reminds folks that the deadline put together by the ABA working group looking at whether to back APRL’s proposals is March 1, 2017.

I am a proud member of APRL – actually presently I’m even fortunate enough to serve as a member of its Board of Directors – but was not able to make it down to Miami for our meeting and the ABA meetings this year.  If you are a reader of this blog, you know that my view is that the only advertising rule that ought to be necessary is a version of RPC 7.1 that states, as does the ABA Model:

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.  A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.

Period.  Full stop.

Now Jayne’s report from the ground mentions that some folks criticized or complained about APRL’s proposal because it would not apply only to advertisements by lawyers.  To me that is a feature, not a bug.  As I’ve also written and spoken about, RPC 7.1 is violated when a lawyer sends a fraudulent bill to a client saying they spent more time on something than they really did and that’s a good thing.  It also, for example, applies to lawyers who lie on their resumes as we saw with this recent instance of lawyer misconduct.

The concern expressed by someone that it could result in discipline against a lawyer politician (presumably one who would have to have lied about some aspect of their personal history I guess) does not give me much pause because if it were so applied it would likely fail First Amendment scrutiny because of the higher standards afforded to protect political speech rather than constitutional speech.

While I think RPC 7.1 ideally is the only rule that ought to exist, I recognize that people are going to insist there be some restriction on in-person solicitation so I also support APRL’s proposed approach to having an additional rule, over and above RPC 7.1, to address that.  As I’ve said before, my only quibble with APRL’s proposal on that front is as to how it defines a sophisticated user of legal services:

If I had one criticism of the APRL proposal, it is with the way it defines a sophisticated user of legal services.  The second part about regular retention of legal services for business purposes is likely where it should have stopped, as the first portion of the definition is pretty amorphous and subject to manipulation.  For example, would a recidivist offender who has gone through repeated jury trials and spent many years in prison someone who would qualify as having had significant dealings with the legal profession?  Seems like a pretty clear argument could be made that the answer would be yes.

I’m going to send this post in to the ABA working committee as my own personal comment.  If you have a viewpoint on these issues (whether it jibes with mine or not), I’d encourage you to send your thoughts as well to them at this email address: modelruleamend@americanbar.org.  (Unless you don’t think lawyer advertising rules are strict enough already.  Then I’d encourage you to stay busy doing other things.  Kidding, just kidding.  But more like Al Franken’s kidding on the square actually.)

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.