By Charles Berwanger
This article discusses an attorney’s ethical duty of honesty not only in all aspects of the law practice but in all personal matters as well. It also presages the California Legislature’s imposition on attorneys the ethical duty to report to the State Bar another attorney’s act of dishonesty.
By Timothy Casey
This article responds to an earlier article that argued against adoption of American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3. (See, David C. Carr, Model Rule 8.3: The Argument Against, Ethics in Brief, November, 2022).
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 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 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 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 Shelly Skinner
California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires that attorneys provide competent representation to their clients. This includes “the duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Cal. Rule of Prof’l Cond., Rule 1.1, Comment 1.
You did it! Three years of stress. Three years of late nights hopped up on caffeine. Three years of interviews, internships, rejections, and successes.
