Ethics for New Lawyers
Inadequate client communication is typically one of the top complaints to the State Bar every year. This is unfortunate because keeping clients informed of developments in the representation is one aspect of the practice of law we can actually control.
Media coverage of efforts by the defendants to disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney in the Georgia case against former President Donald Trump provides a stark reminder of the ethical obligations of both criminal and civil practitioners when making extrajudicial statements about ongoing litigation.
It is important for lawyers to have a solid understanding of their ethical responsibilities when managing and supervising nonlawyer assistants involved in the client intake process. Recently, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 506, which addresses this topic.
As a personal injury lawyer who is only licensed to practice in California, you take great pride in using the latest technology as part of your firm’s day-to-day operations. Effectively incorporating technology into your practice enables you to better serve your clients and bottom line. Recently, you saw a social media ad for an online networking service named “Referral Law, P.C.” (RL[1]) that promises: (1) a national network of lawyers to refer cases and, (2) it will handle the process of collecting referral fees for its members.
If you are a litigator, you have likely been in court and heard another lawyer enter her appearance by stating her name, followed by the phrase “specially appearing.” Or, perhaps you have received a telephone call from another lawyer who requests you “specially appear” at a hearing for a client you have never met. Such appearances are not uncommon in California Superior Court in both civil and criminal matters.
On September 28, 2022, the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 502, which addresses a pro se lawyer’s obligations under ABA Model Rule 4.2 (Communication with Person Represented by Counsel). This rule — often referred to as the skip counsel, no-contact, or anti-contact rule — prohibits a lawyer from communicating “about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or court order.”[1]
As an attorney seeking to advance your career, whether within a firm or within the legal community at large, you may feel the “overachiever” instinct to immediately accept any new assignments, cases, or opportunities within industry organizations. Taking on such additional commitments can be an effective means for motivated attorneys to set themselves apart. While “keeping your nose to the grindstone,” “burning the midnight oil,” or any other hardworking adage of your choice is arguably an occupational hazard of the legal profession, attorneys must remain mindful of their professional obligations and ethical limitations on stretching themselves too thin.
You did it! Three years of stress. Three years of late nights hopped up on caffeine. Three years of interviews, internships, rejections, and successes.
Whether you are a new lawyer or highly experienced in the practice of law, referrals of legal work are central to developing a successful law practice. This article addresses some of the important ethical considerations in giving and receiving referrals of legal work.
The old adage “two is better than one” certainly rings true in today’s legal world. A complex civil matter can involve national counsel, local counsel, trial counsel, and appellate counsel. Co-counseling combines the expertise and experience of multiple lawyers, which can provide benefits to the client and to counsel, including compliance with Rule 1.1 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding competence. However, lawyers will do well to keep the following in mind before they agree to a co-counseling arrangement.
