Article here.
In California, the standards following the rule on advertising say that it's presumptively misleading to have any commuication that, "states or implies that a member or law firm is 'of counsel' to another lawyer or a law firm unless the former has a relationship with the latter (other than as a partner or associate, or officer or shareholder pursuant to Business and professions Code sections 6160-6172) which is close, personal, continuous, and regular."
Another unintended consequence in California:
Sands & Associates v. Juknavorian, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1058 (Cal. App. Oct. 10, 2012). Client brought a fee arbitration proceeding against Law Firm. Law Firm won and is seeking attorneys fees as a "prevailing party" under the terms of the engagement agreement with Client. The trial court, in confirming the arbitration award, granted fees to Law Firm. In this opinion the appellate court reversed. First, the court held that a law firm that represents itself cannot recover lawyers' fees as a prevailing party. Second, the court held that Law Firm had represented itself in the arbitration because Law Firm was represented by two lawyers who were listed on Law Firm's letterhead as "of counsel." Standard (8) under California Rule 1-400(E) states that to designate a lawyer as "of counsel" is to say that the relationship is "close, personal, continuous, and regular."
Posted by: Bill Freivogel | February 14, 2013 at 04:48 PM