By Russell Rawlings
On Jan. 7, I quietly celebrated an anniversary. It was on this date in 1978 that I set about on the mother of all resolutions in my quest to lose a hundred pounds.
It is completely amazing to look back to the days when I was a child to now and see how revolutionary our society has become due to technological developments and advances. When I was in middle school and high school, cell phones were not commonplace. Even by senior year, probably less than half of my classmates had them.
Nowadays, children in elementary school and middle school have cell phones and are far more skilled on them than I am. Just think how much things have changed during the course of experienced lawyers’ careers, when law was practiced out of reports instead of Westlaw!
Technology is amazing, and as attorneys we rely on it to perform our jobs successfully. As a personal injury attorney, I have witnessed how technology altered the legal profession.
While the recent rise of rideshare applications have altered the way we travel, this new technology has directly impacted issues in personal injury litigation as well. Although now we cannot imagine a world without it, Uber began around 2009. Uber and Lyft, along with other companies, infiltrated every major city in the world. It is unbelievable if you look around downtown and see how many cars have the Uber or Lyft symbol on the windshield. While Uber and Lyft offer more choices for consumers and limit those who would drive after drinking, they have brought an interesting new dimension to personal injury law and the new technology has led to new legal issues.
If an Uber or Lyft driver is involved in an accident, questions arise regarding insurance policies. Whose insurance pays for the injuries? Do you have to go after the insurance of the individual first and then the Uber and/or Lyft policy? Uber and Lyft usually carry a pretty large policy which tends to cover the drivers of the cars, but if you are in a ride share and end up in a collision, then there could be multiple people going after the Uber or Lyft policy depending which party was at fault. The insurance issues are just the tip of the iceberg of how personal injury law is having to adapt to new technology.
Yet a bigger game changer is on the horizon: driverless cars. Although currently being tested, they may be on the market in the near future. With Google unveiling the first self-driving car and companies like Chrysler and Ford following, it is only obvious to question how these cars will affect personal injury lawsuits.
If there is a collision with a driverless car or self-driving car, who is to be held responsible? Will insurance cover these collisions? If there is no resource or remedy similar to that of a personal injury lawsuit, then would the injured person be able to go after the manufacturer of the vehicle? Would the individual have to prove that the car malfunctioned or that there is some sort of product liability claim in order to have a chance at successfully suing the manufacturer?
In a recent article, Steven Seidenberg examined the issue of liability when self-driving cars crash. He pointed out that not only is there a question of who is really responsible, there could be a sharing of the blame and multiple defendants involved. He also explained that technical forensic investigations will be required. Personal injury attorneys will need to hire experts and spend far more money and time than they would during a traditional collision in order to determine the cause of the accident. It will add additional expenses to litigation and turn simple negligence suits into complex, lengthy product liability litigation with multiple defendants and experts. It will be up to lawyers to work out these issues and stay on top of the changes driven by technology.
It is hoped that self-driving cars will reduce the amount of distraction-related accidents and make the roads safer. Distracted driving is dangerous, claiming 3,477 lives in 2015 alone (
according to NHTSA
By Gail King
According to the IRS Publication 501, in order to claim Head of Household you must meet the following requirements:
Brand new attorneys starting their own practice have a lot of decisions to make, and a lot of those decisions involve overhead. Should I hire a secretary? Do I work out of my house, or should I rent office space? If I’m renting, where do I locate my office?
Most attorneys will want to find the best possible location they can afford, for the least possible amount of money. Looking at rental prices in good locations, and then suffering the accompanying sticker shock (especially in coastal California), many attorneys will then turn to what appears to be (and can be!) the perfect solution: sharing office space.
The possible arrangements for sharing office space are as varied as the people sharing the offices, and there are countless ways many businesses can ethically create such office sharing arrangements. For attorneys, however, their decisions must be guided by the Rules of Professional Conduct. There are a number of Rules that could come into play in office-sharing situations. But when splitting office space with another attorney, one Rule to keep in mind is Rule 3-310 and the case law that imposes vicarious disqualification on members of a conflicted attorney’s firm.
Rule 3-310 requires an attorney to provide disclosure or obtain consent where the attorney has a past or present client or relationship that conflicts (or could conflict) with the new client’s interests. Rule 3-310 becomes tricky when the attorney has to consider not just his or her own relationships and how they may impact the client, but the relationships of his or her colleagues as well. “Normally, an attorney’s conflict is imputed to the law firm as a whole on the rationale ‘that attorneys, working together and practicing law in a professional association, share each other’s, and their clients’, confidential information.’” City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Cobra Sols., Inc. (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 839, 847–48.
Sharing office space with another, non-affiliated attorney is perfectly legitimate in California. See, e.g., People v. Pastrano (1997) 52 CA4th 610, 617 (“[A]bsent any evidence to the contrary, we presume that the attorneys … maintained sufficient independence from each other and acted ethically when representing each codefendant.”); see also Cal. State Bar Form. Opn. 1997-150. It only becomes problematic if attorneys go beyond sharing space, and give each other formal or even informal access to their files, their computers—their clients’ privileged information. Not only does a failure to keep proper separation between you and your unaffiliated office-mates subject you to potential disqualification, it could result in you violating one of the most fundamental rules governing attorneys—confidentiality.
Always remember that as an attorney, you are ethically bound to keep “inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself preserve the secrets, of his or her client.” Bus & Prof. Code § 6068(e); see also Rule Prof. Conduct Rule 3-100. That means that when sharing offices with other attorneys who are not part of your “firm,” even if you trust those other attorneys, you should consider investing in a good lock on the door to your part of the office. If you maintain filing cabinets in shared spaces, you should look at getting locks on those. And even if you’re not sharing an office with someone else, you should always put a strong password on your computer.
Sharing office space is economical, and it can open up new locations to your budget. Done with your ethical obligations in mind, it can be a smart step in building your law practice.
Leah Strickland (lstrickland@swsslaw.com) is a partner with Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP.
**No portion of this article is intended to constitute legal advice. Be sure to perform independent research and analysis. Any views expressed are those of the author only and not of the SDCBA or its Legal Ethics Committee.**
Back in 2013, Ethics in Brief reported on the decision in Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522 where an associate, working under supervision of a senior attorney, failed in her attempt to dismiss a malicious prosecution action. This publication noted an important statement from the Court of Appeal:
We recognize that an associate attorney is not in the same position as an attorney associating into a case. There is a clear imbalance of power between an often younger associate and an older partner or supervisor, and situations may arise where an associate is put into a difficult position by questioning a more experienced attorney’s choices. Nonetheless, however every attorney admitted to practice in this state has independent duties that are not reduced or eliminated because a superior has directed a certain course of action. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068.) Thus, the fact that she was following a superior’s instructions is not a valid defense to malicious prosecution.
(Id. at p. 1546; see,
https://www.sdcba.org/index.cfm?pg=Ethics-In-Brief-12-16-13
One important decision in the lifecycle of a growing company is when to hire its first in-house counsel. Frequently, this issue arises at a time in the evolution of an organization before there is a need for a full-time employee in this role or room in the corporate budget for a highly compensated general counsel. Other factors may drive the decision of whether to hire an internal attorney including costs, how the function will integrate with the current management and whether there is enough work for a full time employee. When to devote resources to this role is equally important as how to devote those resources.
Before there is a clear need for a full time, in-house attorney, it is common for a company to “staff” the legal function by using a combination of its Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and a Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) and then retain outside counsel for discrete or technical matters, such as for contract negotiations, business litigation or patent work. While possibly cost efficient in the short term, this type of arrangement may result in delegated responsibilities that fall outside of the professional’s traditional roles and areas of expertise which can lead to operational inefficiencies, increased expenses and potential liability, and unanticipated risks as a result of the delegee not having a particular trained skillset.
Recently, a new approach has emerged whereby companies with regular and recurring legal needs utilize outside counsel to serve the role of “Outsourced” General Counsel. Although it may sound like an oxymoron, companies embracing this option thoughtfully and tactically enjoy the benefits of having dedicated senior counsel, reduced overall legal expenditures and a valuable strategic partner with deep and comprehensive knowledge of the organization to provide sound legal guidance.
This article explains the role of the Outsourced General Counsel and offers some important considerations for businesses to take into account when retaining counsel to serve this role.
Outsourced General Counsel Defined
The Outsourced General Counsel position can take a variety of forms, but, at its core, it is a role within the legal function of a company where a dedicated external attorney resource handles and manages the routine legal needs of a business on a part-time basis. Examples of the types of matters an Outsourced General Counsel might typically perform include contract drafting and negotiation, customer and vendor agreements, human resources issues and documentation, Board of Directors matters and corporate governance to name a few.
Why Outsourced General Counsel?
This is an excellent question. The benefits of a high quality Outsourced General Counsel relationship are numerous.
By Jeff Bennion
For most of us, troubleshooting cybersecurity is difficult because we usually can’t see the problem and only find out about it after there’s been some catastrophic loss. Even if you are a cybersecurity novice, there are some simple things you can do and look out for to make sure your confidential client files are safer.
Consider Moving to the Cloud
Knowing the possible signs of elder abuse can help you make sound decisions. Not only can you better evaluate situations, but you can also understand when it is critical to intercede – whether by yourself or with the help of a professional.
Let’s take a look at the warning signs that can indicate elder abuse.
=&0=&
While not the only sign of elder abuse, physical marks are one of the most tell-tale indications someone is being mistreated. Whether it is bruises, abrasions or broken bones, any of these conditions may signal the person is being abused by their caretaker.
=&1=&
Is someone you know acting more withdrawn than usual? Do they seem depressed or not like their usual self? This may be a sign of emotional abuse, and it can result from neglect or as a side effect of physical abuse.
=&2=&
