By Richard D. Hendlin
This Ethics in Brief will focus on the venerable “no contact” rule set forth in California Rules of Professional Conduct [CRPC] Rule 4.2 which had its origin in the first rules promulgated in 1928.[i]
By Eric R. Deitz
Changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct accompany the coming new year, and consistent with the duty of competence (Rule 1.1)[1], California attorneys must apprise themselves of the same. Two important and related changes take effect January 1, 2023, and affect a lawyer’s obligation to communicate (Rule 1.4) and to safely handle client funds and property (Rule. 1.15).
By Julie Thorpe-Lopez
Paradoxically, the pressure to be joyful during the holidays sometimes eviscerates the actual experience of joy. In addition to the regular stress of our jobs, family, and personal obligations, we are bombarded with pressures to celebrate, whether we actually celebrate a particular holiday or not. Adding to this already overflowing plate of stress is traveling or hosting guests, shopping, financial pressures, and spending time with extended family — with whom we may or may not positively connect. When things don’t go the way the holidays look in commercials or on social media (most of which is really unachievable unless your profession is “TV producer” or “social media influencer”), we feel a sense of failure. When our kids are going bananas without a regular school routine for three or four weeks, we feel like we are blowing it as parents. Plus, we’ve all endured a years-long pandemic and have been in fight-or-flight adrenaline overload for much longer than humans were made to endure. We still have tremendous political divisiveness permeating the media — another stressor that crops up with the extended family time we are expected to put in. It’s no surprise that joy and peace don’t always come easily during this time.
By Charles Berwanger
All of us have most probably received email communications from opposing counsel in a matter in which counsel’s client is shown as a “cc.” You have been waiting for the opportunity to at long last communicate with the client. You fear that opposing counsel has not communicated your settlement offer to the client and now may be the opportunity to communicate that offer by hitting the “reply all” tab. The settlement proposal is relevant to the substance of the email. However, you are concerned that such a communication may violate Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 which proscribes communicating with a represented party without the consent of opposing counsel.
By Megan M. Moore
In moments of stress or frustration, you might notice you don’t want to feel this way and then double down by telling yourself that you shouldn’t feel this way, or that you got yourself into this mess to begin with. Now you’re feeling stressed and bad about yourself. Sound familiar?
By Jeff Michalowski
In recent years, amicus briefing has played an increasingly significant role in appellate practice. This is true, of course, in blockbuster Supreme Court cases like Dobbs (in which 133 amici filed briefs) and Obergefell (in which 149 amici filed briefs). But amicus briefs consume more and more of practitioners’ time in the intermediate appellate courts as well, and occasionally in the trial courts, too. Consider Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) (identifying 257 amicus briefs in same-sex marriage case). See also Allison Orr Larsen, “The Amicus Machine,” 102 Virginia Law Review 1901 (2016) (noting the increased use of amicus briefs, and increased citation to amicus briefs in opinions).
By David C. Carr
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 8.3 provides that “a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.” Despite being adopted by most, if not all, American jurisdictions, Rule 8.3 has not been adopted in California. A California version was considered by the Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct but not adopted as part of the Commission’s recommended set of rules. The drafting team memo sets forth this analysis:
By Heidi Weaver
It’s kind of a running joke here at the law school where I work that lunchtime can be feast or famine. Some days you’re lucky if you can grab a stale granola bar or some Pirate Booty from the snack tray in our department, while other days there’s leftover pizza, In-N-Out burgers, and yellow curry coming our way from all the midday programming events that are going on. Neither of these extremes is particularly healthy, but I’m always grateful for any form of sustenance I can get since I’ve never been great at making and packing a lunch for work. Such a thing for me connotes meal planning, and meal planning is an activity I’ve just never been drawn to. In my mind, meal planning means spending all Sunday at the supermarket and then being stuck in the kitchen laboring over cookbooks and a hot stove. A lofty goal, but never a practical one when I only have minutes to spare.
By Alara T. Chilton
For many years, improving civility among lawyers has been a serious concern for the legal profession, including in California. In response, the State Bar, district courts, local bar associations, and other legal organizations have published civility codes and guidelines to help lawyers better understand what type of behavior is considered civil and professional. Unfortunately, many lawyers inaccurately view these publications as having little consequence if not followed. Such viewpoints are gravely misplaced.
By Judge Dwayne Moring
The San Diego Superior Court launched a local Judicial Mentor Program (JMP) last year to encourage the development of a well-qualified and diverse judicial applicant pool with a varied background of legal practice areas.
