Lawyers commit misconduct—an obvious fact evidenced by the discipline cases the Office of Chief Trial Counsel reports annually and decisions of the State Bar Court and California Supreme Court. But misconduct does not always mean severe discipline: suspension or disbarment even.
When a business lawyer represents a group of surgeons from a major corporation, who is his client?
The start of a new year offers an opportunity to take stock of where we’ve been over the past twelve months and where we’d like to be at the end of the new year. With 2020 behind us, we hope for a better year in 2021. To be sure, one place we don’t want to be in 2021 is on the wrong side of a disciplinary action!
What is the scope of representation permissible under pro hac vice admission authorizing representation of an organizational defendant? Can such counsel also represent current and former employees of the company?
In the past weeks, the Attorneys General of several states, repaired to the courts to challenge (and defend) the presidential election results. Were there ethical constraints on them?
One purpose of the advocate-witness rule is to prevent factfinder confusion: is an advocate-witness’s statement to be considered proof or argument?
The attorney-client privilege protects against compelled disclosure of confidential communication between an attorney and her client. The Evidence Code takes this protection a step further by prohibiting attorneys and judges alike from drawing negative inferences from the invocation of the privilege.
Whether a newer or experienced lawyer, it may appropriate to seek guidance concerning one’s ethical and other obligations to clients.
Ethical considerations place restrictions on what lawyers can and cannot communicate in a demand letter. This article will examine some of the ethical considerations specified in California Rule of Professional Conduct, 4.1 (Truthfulness to Others).
Ethical rules, statutes and case law prescribe and proscribe the conduct of California lawyers. In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal, Second District, interpreted the attorney-witness rule and concluded it applies not only at trial but also in the context of pretrial activities.