Ethics Rules Lawyers Should Remember

Bring On the Pettifoggers: Revisiting the Ethics Rules, Civil Gideon, and the Role of the Judiciary

Lawyers' Obligations When Representing Clients With Diminished Capacity

Preliminary Report of the American Bar Association Task Force on Corporate Responsibility

The ABA has adopted four model policies that address, in one way or another, the issue of foreign lawyer mobility. These policies are the ABA Model Foreign Legal Consultant Rule, which is commonly known as the FLC rule, the ABA Model Rule for Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers, which is commonly known as the FIFO rule, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5, which permits foreign lawyers to serve as in-house counsel, and the ABA Model Rule on Pro Hac Vice Admission. All four of the ABA’s foreign lawyer mobility recommendations include a requirement that the mobile foreign lawyer is “subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or a public authority.” In other words, these rules set forth requirements regarding the nature of the regulatory system in the foreign lawyer’s home jurisdiction. A number of U.S. states have included this requirement in their foreign lawyer mobility provisions, but a number have not. (Some countries have a somewhat comparable provision in their foreign lawyer mobility rules, but other countries do not.) Although the ABA model rules and a number of state rules include this requirement, neither the ABA Model Rules nor any of the state rules have defined what it means for a foreign lawyer to come from a system with “effective regulation and discipline.” Nor is there any evidence that this requirement has been enforced in those states that have included this requirement. This article suggests that the “effective regulation and discipline” requirement has been an elephant in the room that no one has been willing to talk about. The article argues that the time has come to confront this issue head-on. It asserts that either efforts should be undertaken to define and enforce this requirement or that the requirement should be abandoned. The article reviews two “threshold” issues that jurisdictions might want to consider when deciding whether to adopt or retain an “effective regulation and discipline” requirement. It also identifies resources that might be consulted for “benchmarking” purposes if and when U.S. regulators decide to add “meat to the bones” by defining and enforcing the “effective regulation and discipline” requirement found in foreign lawyer mobility provisions.

better part of valor is discretion!.] William Shakespeare Henry IV, Part 1, Act 5, Scene 4, Lines 119-120 PUBLIC criticism of lawyers is nothing new. President Theodore Roosevelt, for example, described lawyers as hired cunning during commencement address at Harvard University in 1905. (1) What is new, however, are the many digital platforms now available for disgrunded former clients to publicly broadcast their criticism of individual lawyers. (2) The criticism involved often does not rise to the level of threatened claim--with he is lousy more common than she committed malpractice. Given the importance of web-based marketing for many lawyers today, this kind of criticism can nonetheless pose very real problem for lawyer's reputation in the electronic marketplace. When confronted with such public affronts, lawyers may contemplate responses that include revealing otherwise confidential information to set the record straight. This course, however, risks compounding the problem because the lawyer may inadvertently expose him or herself to regulatory discipline. Historically, the so-called exception to the confidentiality rule (3) has been applied to threatened or actual malpractice claims or bar complaints rather than simple public criticism. This leaves lawyer with dilemma over effectively--but safely (4)--rebutting negative online client reviews. This article will first survey the constraints imposed by the self-defense exception and will then turn to avenues for effectively rebutting such criticism from former clients without violating the confidentiality rule. (6) II. Self-Defense Is Generally No Defense The self-defense exception is found in ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(5): (b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (5) to establish claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish defense to criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the (7) Today's exception traces its lineage to Canon 37, which was adopted in 1928 as an addition to the ABA Canons of Professional that were originally promulgated in 1908. (8) When the Canons were replaced by the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility in 1969, (9) the self-defense exception was carried over into Model DR 4-101 (C)(4). (10) When, in turn, the Model Code was replaced by the ABA Model Rules in 1983, (11) the exception continued as Model Rule 1.6(b)(2) and was then renumbered to its current position in 2003 as part of the Ethics 2000 amendments. (12) Comment 10 to ABA Model Rule 1.6 rounds out the text of the exception and focuses on civil claims, disciplinary charges and similar proceedings (13) involving a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer: Where legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in client's conduct or other misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish defense. The same is true with respect to claim involving the conduct or representation of former client. Such charge can arise in civil, criminal, disciplinary or other proceeding and can be based on wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client or on wrong alleged by third person, for example, person claiming to have been defrauded by the lawyer and client acting together. The lawyer's right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been made. Paragraph (b)(5) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by responding directly to third party who has made such an assertion. …

The legal profession is undergoing a profound transformation driven by emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, and virtual/augmented reality. These innovations are reshaping traditional modes of legal communication between attorneys, clients, and institutions, challenging the profession to adapt while upholding core ethical principles. This paper examines the evolving landscape of legal communication in light of technological change, examining how these tools influence ethical responsibilities such as confidentiality, competence, and informed consent. It highlights regulatory updates, such as changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and assesses how these reforms interact with new communication tools. By identifying both the opportunities and ethical pitfalls presented by these technologies, the study proposes a preliminary framework to help legal practitioners balance innovation with compliance and professionalism. Ultimately, the integration of technology must be approached with deliberate safeguards to ensure the integrity of attorney-client interactions and the preservation of public trust in the legal system. Keywords: Legal communication, Emerging technologies, Attorney-client privilege, Legal ethics, Artificial intelligence in law, Blockchain and smart contracts.

Whose Rules Rule? Resolving Ethical Conflicts During the Simultaneous Representation of Clients In Patent Prosecution

Ramifications of Diminished Capacity

Running Past Landmines – The Estate Attorney’s Dilemma: Ethically Counseling the Client With Alzheimer’s Disease

The Role of Ethics Audits in Improving Management Systems and Practices: An Empirical Examination of Management-Based Regulation of Law Firms

The American Bar Association promulgates model ethics rules that require attorneys to adhere to certain professional standards in the practice of law. The ABA recently published an advisory ethics opinion addressing the ethical implications of lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI. While framed around the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the opinion offers principles that are instructive well beyond the legal profession, especially for compliance in the realm of disability services.

Why Not Try the Carrot? A Modest Proposal for Granting Immunity to Lawyers Who Disclose Client Financial Misconduct

If Shylock Had a Lawyer

More Than Lawyers: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Counseling Clients on Nonlegal Considerations

This Note advocates for the creation of a uniform ethical requirement that all attorneys in divorce proceedings involving children inform their clients about alternative dispute resolution (ADR), particularly mediation and collaborative law. By emphasizing cooperation and negotiation among the divorcing parents, both mediation and collaborative law offer these would‐be litigants the opportunity to move forward with their parental duties long after the divorce is finalized. Using the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as a template, this ethical requirement will ensure that clients are fully informed of the availability of ADR and of the chance to forgo potentially unnecessary litigation. Ultimately, the implementation of an ethical requirement holds the potential to minimize the impact of divorce on children by facilitating the process of moving forward for the family as a whole.