Navigating the Duty of Candor on Appeal
It is no secret that trial attorneys must navigate ethical minefields as they collect information from their clients, as they engage in discovery, and as they present evidence to judges and juries.
It is no secret that trial attorneys must navigate ethical minefields as they collect information from their clients, as they engage in discovery, and as they present evidence to judges and juries.
Sparking intense controversy, in 2016 the American Bar Association (“ABA”) amended Model Rule 8.4 to add paragraph (g), making it professional misconduct 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.”
The American Bar Association reported in October 2019 that 26% of law firms had experienced security breaches.
Some lawyers face State Bar discipline because of deliberate misconduct; others, because stupid misconduct put them there.
Rules 1.9(a) and 1.18(c) address conflicts involving representing a current client with interests that are ‘materially adverse’ to the interests of a former client or prospective client on the same or a substantially related matter.
Next time a colleague asks you for a courtesy extension of some deadline, remember, the decision is most likely yours, not your client’s.
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.
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?