Ethics in Brief: When Waiving Really Means Bye-Bye
Can Conflict Waivers Always Cure All?
By Nicholas Pilchak
Author: Katelynn Robinson
Ethics in Brief: Considerations When a Third Party is Paying a Client’s Fees
By Anne M. Rudolph
There are various situations that may arise where an attorney may be asked to allow a third party to pay a client’s attorney’s fees and costs. Examples include a parent paying for their child’s criminal defense attorney or divorce attorney. When a third party is paying the bills, it is particularly important that an attorney not conflate the client with the person paying the bills, and that an attorney maintain client confidentiality by not sharing confidential communications with the third party.[1]
“Now is the Time to Step Up” — SDCBA Board Elections and Other Volunteer Opportunities
By Stacey A. Kartchner
As Immediate Past President of the SDCBA and Chair of the Leadership Outreach Committee (“LOC”), I have the privilege of collaborating with an exceptionally talented and amazing group of individuals to recruit potential candidates for the 2026 Board of Directors election. If you want to dedicate your time and talent to creating real change and making a meaningful impact within the legal community, you can do so by serving on the Board.
Financial and Ethical Sanctions for Unmeritorious Litigation Claims: Two Recent Decisions Highlight the Necessity of Advancing Only Meritorious Litigation Claims
By Charles Berwanger
Those two decisions are: Plantations at Haywood 1, LLC v. Plantations at Haywood, LLC (2025) 108 Cal. App. 5th 803; and Lake v. Gates (9th Cir., 2025) 130 F. 4th 1064. Both culminated in the imposition of in excess of $80,000 in sanctions on the attorneys, not the parties, and directly or indirectly implicate rules of professional conduct.
Why Civility Matters for Ethics, Mental Health, and Public Confidence
By Stacy Plotkin-Wolff
It’s mid-2025, and California’s new civility CLE requirement is now officially in effect. For the first time, all California attorneys must complete at least one hour of continuing legal education addressing civility in the legal profession. This change is more than a technical update to MCLE compliance—it represents a critical acknowledgment by the State Bar of California that civility is foundational to attorney wellness, ethical practice, and, ultimately, public confidence in the legal system. In an era where trust in institutions is increasingly fragile, how lawyers treat each other and the courts has become a reflection of how the justice system treats the public.
Ethics in Brief: The File Retention Puzzle
By: David C. Carr
One of the more vexing puzzles in legal ethics is the seemingly straightforward question: How long do I keep the client’s file after the representation ends? There is no bright-line rule. There is no rule because of the varieties of legal representation and the differing needs of those varieties of clients. Some areas of litigation, like unlawful detainer practice, involve relatively swift proceedings and a great degree of finality, veritable mayflies in the legal ecosystem. Other areas of practice include issues and proceedings that can span years and even decades, like criminal defense, estates and probate practice, and sometimes marital dissolution practice where the client’s need for the file may be indefinite. The starting point for solving this puzzle is recognition that the client file is the property of the client and file retention practices are part of the fiduciary duty to safeguard client property that the lawyer owes the client.
The Client Intake Meeting: Two Recent Decisions Provide Guidance for Avoiding Conflicts and Disqualification
By Katie Parker
A frequent scenario: an attorney meets with a potential client about a matter, but then for any number of reasons they don’t end up forming an attorney-client relationship. Unsurprisingly, that meeting can potentially disqualify the attorney from representing another party to the matter they discussed. Two recent Court of Appeal decisions flesh out the parameters of the duties an attorney owes to a prospective client and provide guidance for lawyers to follow in client intake meetings.
The Ethical Obligations of a Court-Appointed Guardian ad Litem as Opposed to the Obligations held by a Court-Appointed Attorney
By Khodadad “Ko” Sharif
For all intents and purposes, an attorney appointed by the court to represent a party is in an attorney-client relationship with the party and bound by the rules of professional conduct. On the other hand, an attorney appointed as a Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) answers to the court, and represents the ward’s best interest, not their wishes. The GAL does not enjoy an attorney-client relationship with the ward and owes no duty of confidentiality except when the GAL is involved in a privileged matter. “A guardian ad litem is not a party to an action, but merely the representative of record of a party.” Estate of Cochems, 110 Cal. App. 2d 27, 29 (1952). The appointment of a GAL can be under Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 1003 of the California Probate Code. When a person, whether a minor or not, lacks the capacity to make decisions, if the court determines that the appointment of a GAL would help represent their best interest, then a GAL is appointed. “[T]he authority of the guardian ad litem in relation to the suit is equal to what would be the authority of the ward if he were an adult.” In re Guardianship of Price, 61 Cal. App. 592, 599 (1923). Additionally, the GAL is protected by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity.
Mindful Minute: Compassion Fatigue vs. Burnout
By: Koryn Sheppard
Compassion fatigue—also known as secondary stress reaction, secondhand shock, secondary traumatic stress, or vicarious trauma—refers to the physical, emotional, and psychological toll of helping others experiencing stress or trauma. It often stems from working in high-stress environments. Compassion fatigue fundamentally alters one’s worldview due to repeated exposure to trauma and can result in a blunted or inability to feel compassion.
The Winding Road of Withdrawing from Representation to Paying Emotional Distress Damages
By Valerie Silverman Massey
In the recent case of Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC, (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 14, 2025, No. B317069) 2025 WL 814965, reh’g denied (Mar. 27, 2025), the court addressed a crucial aspect of professional conduct by examining the emotional distress suffered by a client due to the conduct of their attorney. Plaintiff, Kaushansky, filed a breach of fiduciary duty action (amongst others) against her former attorney, Stonecroft Attorneys, APC, after the attorney withdrew from representation.