Legal Ethics Forum

"Resigned with chargees pending" may require confession or "no contest" plea in California

The California State Bar is considering a rule that would drastically change the practice of resigning with discipline charges pending.  If ultimately approved, the new rule would require lawyers to either concede misconduct or plead no contest.  (Unfortunately, the Daily Journal doesn't provide internet access, so I will provide a link once the American Lawyer Media covers the story.)  According to the State Bar, the current practice allows the accused lawyer to "hide the nature and extent of his misconduct."  Of course, the current practice also allows for efficient disbarment.  Whether this change would incent lawyers to contest claims remains to be seen.  About half the states have rules similar to the one that California is proposing.

I like a good earthquake -- but I hope everyone's OK

I hope no one was hurt.  More news as it arrives.  Here's the map.  I had guessed 5.5 and it looks like I'm pretty close.  [edit]  It appears to be the Calaveras fault.  The Hayward fault, which is adjacent to the Calaveras, runs only a couple hundred yards from the UC-Berkeley law school.  (The law school buildings are just to the left of the "STAD" on the photo.  And, yes, the Hayward fault runs from endzone to endzone.)

Yagman and Lerach to jail for how long?

In the news today two famous California lawyers -- Bill Lerach and Stephen Yagman -- are said to be heading to jail.  Yagman, the fearless civil rights lawyer and gadfly, famous for his intemperate attacks on the judiciary, was convicted of hiding assets in the bankruptcy process for himself and his firm and the government has asked that he serve nine years in jail.  (If you ever want to shock your legal ethics students, read them the footnote from In re Yagman that quotes his description of a sitting federal judge.)

Lerach, who pled guilty to participating in kickbacks to class reps, faces one to two years.  While we're at it, we might as well mention Lynne Stewart, who was sentenced to 28 months -- but the government, which sought an insanely high 30 years for her, has appealed that sentence.

How does an american attorney charge more hours?

Our readers ask and we do our best to answer.  Answer: by working longer hours, or leveraging the work with more associates. (I assume, and hope, that the implicit assumption of the question was "how do American lawyers legally charge more hours?")

News articles: Lawyering styles of the presidential candidates; US firms in London to disclose financials?

Here's an interesting NYT article by Adam Liptak on the lawyering careers and lawyering styles of presidential candidates.    . . . .    American Lawyer Media reports that US firms with UK offices may have to publish financials.  (nod to Concurring Opinions)

Laurel Terry's site for "Global Legal Practice Resources"

Laurel Terry, a professor at Penn State, created this "Global Legal Practices Resources" page.  We hope to have a post from her soon, but in the meantime head there to find source documents for comparative studies of the legal profession.

And, in a similar vein, Brad has reminded us of the call for papers for the Third International Legal Ethics Conference.

Stadium Naming Rights, Super Lawyer Ads, and Obscenity

I recently read two stories about lawyer advertising, this one about $20,000 ads in the "Super Lawyers" publication and this one about an Indiana law firm that spent more than $500,000 for naming rights in a football stadium.  The two marketing ploys seemed pretty similar to me, but only the Super Lawyers ads have gotten the attention of the legal ethics advertising police: New Jersey's Committee on Attorney Advertising claimed that such ads are "likely to create an unjustified expectation as to results."  Thankfully, the New Jersey Supreme Court stayed the enforcement of the opinion, but there are ongoing hearings in New Jersey to decide the issue once and for all. 

Personally, I don't see how the public is any more likely to have unreasonable expectations after reading a "Super Lawyers" ad than after seeing a law firm's name in a prominent place in a football stadium.  Obviously, stadium naming rights are not indicative of quality or ethics, as anyone who used to go to Enron Field surely knows.  But the public is savvy enough to know that.  And I don't see how an ad in a publication called "Super Lawyers" is any different.  Indeed, there is simply no decent empirical data to suggest that lawyer advertisements of this sort cause any unjustified expectations among potential clients. 

Ultimately, bar disciplinary authorities review lawyer advertising using a standard that makes Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" test seem clear.  In fact, I bet I could do a better job predicting what Justice Stewart would have considered to be obscenity than guessing what New Jersey would view as misleading advertising.  Now that's truly obscene.

For a profession that spends its time developing and refining the law, we can do a whole lot better than the current haphazard approach.  We should start by allowing lawyers to market themselves with the same freedom as other professionals and then focus on issues that truly matter to the profession, the public, and the justice system. 

Another day, another dollar

John's excellent posts  from the Lawyering at the Edge conference reminded me of a time, before I was seduced by economics, when I wanted nothing more than to be a criminal defense lawyer.  I had the great good fortune to spend a summer working for the late Vince Fuller, best known for winning the acquittal, by reason of insanity, of John Hinckley. 

Vince was a gentleman in the fullest and best sense of the word.  Despite his stature, there was no pretense, no hint of pomposity, to him.  He treated his work as a job.  The job had the dignity of honest, hard work; no more, no less. 

After the Hinckley verdict, Vince was quoted as saying only "another day, another dollar."  I was not sure what to make of that when I first heard it.  Some media reports portrayed it as the height of cynicism.  After working for Vince for a little while, though, I interpreted the comment as saying, in essence "This is what I do for a living. It's not  political commentary, and it's not a social movement.  It's a job." 

I would never begrudge any criminal defense attorney whatever orientation to the job they need to take to get it done, but I have always thought the jobbist approach has a lot to recommend it.  "Another day, another dollar" is not an inspiring slogan, but it is a sound philosophy.

DM

Practical experience and law school teaching

This article from the Harvard Law Record (by way of Nuts & Boalts and Volokh) suggests that practical experience disqualifies a person from teaching in law school.  People often ask me if that isn't especially true about law professors who teach legal ethics, but in my experience lots of them have deep knowledge about practical lawyering if not deep experience doing actual lawyering.

In Wisconsin, legal ethics isn't always boring

Or so it seems (via Volokh).