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.
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.”
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).)
By David C. Carr
It is a truism that lawyers are often better at protecting their clients than protecting themselves. One area that illustrates this is what are colloquially referred to as “conflict waivers.”
By Anne Rudolph
Some attorneys advertise their services by purchasing ads in the newspaper, a trade magazine, and in other more traditional ways that are easily understood to be marketing and advertising. All such marketing and advertising must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
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.
