Author: San Diego County Bar Association

Making Antiracism a Core Value in Academic Institutions

By Taneashia Morrell

Within and outside our academic walls, it is essential that educators and administrators (1) create a culture of academic health, equity, and equality that empowers all students, especially those populations who have historically been marginalized and oppressed; and (2) uproot the manifestations of racism that are visible and invisible in our academic institutions. Read More

When Zealous Advocacy Goes Too Far

By Irean Z. Swan

The idea of zealous advocacy is not a foreign concept to an attorney. In fact, the preamble to the  Model Rules provides that “[a]s advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.” But when does zealous advocacy exceed the bounds of the law and cross the line into actionable conduct such as extortion? The Second District Court of Appeal recently examined this question again in the case of Geragos v. Abelyan (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1005. Read More

Proposed Rule 8.3 Competing Alternatives: What’s on the Table Now?

By Mallory H. Chase

Currently out for public comment are two alternative versions of a proposed new California Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 8.3, which would address a lawyer’s duty to report the misconduct of another lawyer to the State Bar. As it stands, California is the last hold-out United States jurisdiction without an adopted rule on the topic. Read More

One Word Change Can Make a Big Difference

By Michael L. Crowley

As most practitioners know by now, there was a major revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2018 that govern us all. One controversial change was to Rule 4.2 (previously Rule 2-100) that was only the change of one word. The one-word change is highlighted in the title of the Rule. It went from “Communication With a Represented Party” in Rule 2-100 to “Communication with a Represented Person” in new Rule 4.2. The change replaced “Party” with “Person.” Read More

Engagement Letters: Some Ethical Considerations

By Mitchell L. Lathrop

Professional ethics require that at the outset of the attorney-client relationship, the client is made aware of the nature and scope of the attorney’s responsibilities, usually through an engagement letter. Few things are as important in today’s law practice as engagement letters. Inadequate or poorly drafted engagement letters can spell real problems for the lawyer. Boilerplate terms can also be a source of trouble for the lawyer or firm utilizing them. Limited engagement letters are problematic when the limited scope is not followed. When the lawyer exceeds the scope of a limited engagement, the limited engagement letter will not protect the lawyer in subsequent legal malpractice proceedings. (Astral Brands v. Boyd, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114224, 2021 WL 2448358 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 28, 2021). As the court pointed out in Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 983, “An attorney’s duty to his or her client depends on not only the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also the scope of the duties assumed by the lawyer.” Where an agreement for legal services violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, it may be declared unenforceable.(Chambers v. Kay (2002) 29 Cal.4th 142 (enforcement of a fee division agreement undertaken without written client consent held unenforceable on the ground that the arrangement violated the Rules of Professional Conduct).) Read More