Can the State Bar be held accountable for failure to discipline a lawyer?
By Deborah Wolfe
One of the many facets of serving on the SDCBA’s Legal Ethics Committee (“LEC”) (in addition to penning articles for “Ethics in Brief “and “For the Record”) includes providing MCLE seminars for other lawyers focusing on legal ethics requirements. I frequently observe on such occasions the panicked looks on attendees’ faces when something I’ve said makes them fearful about possibly having missed a conflict of interest situation, or providing a client with appropriate disclosures within ethical boundaries. The purpose of the seminars is not to scare practitioners into compliance, but merely to remind them of the high standards lawyers are expected to meet. Lawyers’ ethics require us to put our clients’ interests ahead of our own; no other profession requires such an extreme level of duty to one’s clients. To the point, Business & Professions Code section 6068(e) requires lawyers to maintain the confidences of our clients at “every peril” to ourselves. I have always interpreted this section to mean that even faced with a loaded gun, I should take a bullet rather than betray any client confidence or secret. Despite its antiquated language, subsequent case law and State Bar decisions have held this section to convey that in addition to confidences and secrets, it requires lawyers to maintain the highest level of fiduciary duty and undivided loyalty to their clients.