By Deborah Wolfe

Apparently, in 2022, despite years of progress and women entering the legal profession at a rate of 51% compared to men, misogyny is alive and well — though perhaps less overtly than was tolerated in the past. However, the current Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), in effect since Nov. 1, 2018, provide for the State Bar to take disciplinary action against lawyers engaging in discriminatory conduct of any kind against anyone when acting in their capacity as a lawyer. The former RPC dealing with virtually all types of unlawful discrimination by lawyers, 2-400, was a weak and rarely-used basis for discipline, and only applied to the “management or operation” of a law practice. Specifically, a 2-400 violation was not even actionable by the Office of Chief Trial Counsel unless it was first “found to be unlawful by an appropriate civil administrative or judicial tribunal under applicable state or federal law. Until there is a finding of civil unlawfulness, there is no basis for disciplinary action under this rule.” Read More

By Michael L. Crowley

Nary a week goes by without your author being asked how long we have to keep our files in storage. I would like to be able to give you a definitive answer, but there isn’t one. The state bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC), however, is venturing into the area and you are likely not going to like it.  Read More

By David C. Carr

Independence is often referred to as one of the core values of the legal profession. This value is reflected in American Bar Association Model Rule 5.4, entitled “Professional Independence of A Lawyer.” Model Rule 5.4(a) provides that a “lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-lawyer …” with some narrow exceptions. Model Rule 5.4(b) forbids a lawyer from forming a partnership with a non-lawyer “if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.” Subsection (c) of the Model Rule states that a “lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.” Finally, Model Rule 5.4(d) says that a lawyer may not practice in the form of a professional corporation or other association if a non-lawyer holds any interest in the entity, is a director or similar member of the control group, or otherwise has the right to control the professional judgment of the lawyer. The rationale is that non-lawyers, unbound by the lawyer’s professional obligations, may make decisions that are not in the clients’ best interest in the name of more profit for the business entity. Read More

By Anne M. Rudolph

The business of being a lawyer is not unlike other businesses in the sense that we rely on satisfied customers (clients) to establish, build and maintain a successful practice. Word of mouth and recommendations are an integral part of that process. In the modern age, online review sites have become ubiquitous. Avvo, Google, Martindale-Hubbell, and Yelp, are some of the most well-known on which someone can post a review of a lawyer’s services.  Read More

By Shelly Skinner

California’s legal ethics rules are designed to protect the public and the integrity of the legal system, while promoting the administration of justice and confidence in the legal profession. Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 1.0. Attorney candor is crucial to achieving these aims. While the legal ethics rules set forth many aspects of the duty of candor, this article will focus on the duty to communicate settlement offers in civil matters. Read More

By Mallory H. Chase

Although nonlawyers are not directly governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct (see CRPC, rule 1.0(a) [the “rules are intended to regulate professional conduct of lawyers through discipline”] [emphasis added]), rule 8.4 provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “violate these rules or the State Bar Act, knowingly* assist, solicit, or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another[.]”[1] (CRPC, rule 8.4(a).) Additionally, under CRPC, rule 5.3, managerial and supervisory lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure the conduct of nonlawyers who are employed by, retained by, or associated with the lawyer is compatible with lawyer’s professional obligations. Among those professional obligations is the prohibition on certain types of solicitations, as delineated in CRPC, rule 7.3.[2] Read More

By David C. Carr

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3, has a new opinion, Falcon Brands v. Mousavi & Lee L.L.P. (case no. G059477, filed 1/27/22), that adds to our knowledge of one of the more opaque issues in legal ethics: when do a lawyer’s demands to settle become extortion? Read More

By Anne M. Rudolph 

In 2018, the Supreme Court rejected a proposed modified version of Model Rule 1.14 which would have allowed an attorney to take protective action if the attorney reasonably believed that the client had diminished capacity, was unable to act in the client’s own interest, and was at significant risk of physical, psychological or financial harm. Though the Supreme Court did not state its reason for the rejection, it is understood that the proposed rule was rejected because taking such protective action would have required an attorney to disclose a client’s confidential information in contradiction of the attorney’s duty under Business and Professions Code 6068, subdivision (e).  Read More