Tagged: #ethicsinbrief

A recent opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal serves to remind attorneys of the requirements that must be satisfied in order to have a valid and enforceable referral fee arrangement.

In its recent Formal Opinion 491, issued April 29, 2020, the American Bar Association (“Opinion 491”) provided a strong reminder to lawyers that they may not always rely solely upon a client’s word.

On February 11, 2020 the State Bar Court of California Review Department in the Matter of Gregory Melvin Haynes upheld the State Bar Hearing Judge’s finding that misconduct committed by attorney Haynes found by the federal court to require his disbarment from practicing before the Northern District.

LegalMatch.com is and has been a popular online service for some 20 years. It’s days, at least in California, however, may be at risk.

Sometimes, even reviewing just a few aspects of a firm’s operations can indicate areas for improvement. And those facets are not necessarily where you would expect.

The safe harbor from having to report to the State Bar any discovery sanction is now partially potentially gone.

There are many fraught areas of legal ethics, but few that match the tension that is reflected in California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2.1

In Hance v. Super Store Industries, 2020 WL 373070, (Jan. 23, 2020), the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District addressed two important ethics rules involving fee sharing and disclosure to the client regarding whether an attorney has legal malpractice insurance.

We are repositories of vast amounts of client confidential information — from both current and former clients.

An attorney’s obligations become more ambiguous when it comes to reviews made by clients on websites maintained by a third party.