Legal Ethics Forum

Poll of UC-Berkeley students about ethics courses they'd consdider taking

I recently had lunch with several professors who teach legal ethics at Fordham, and was struck by the variety of the course offerings they had.  That prompted me to use the free version of the Survey Monkey site to poll UC-Berkeley law students about what legal ethics courses they might like.  Using a menu of 12 possible choices, I asked “If all the following courses were offered at Boalt, which legal ethics courses would you seriously consider taking? (Check all that apply.)”  128 students voted.  Here’s the rank ordering of the most popular responses:

 

 

course	%
1. Overview/Survey course (3 credit)	65%
2. Lecture course (2 credit; black letter law)	55%
3. LE in Private Practice	51%
4. LE in Civil Litigation	43%
5. LE in Trial Practice (Criminal & Civil)	38%
6. Moral Foundations of LE	30%
7. LE in Business Transactions	27%
8. LE in Non-Firm (inhouse, govt, NGOs, etc.)	25%
9. Comparative Leg. Prof. & Globalization	23%
10. LE in Criminal Practice	22%
11. LE in Social Justice Practice	21%
12. LE in Intellectual Property Practice	18%

Some more comments below the jump.

Lawyer sanctioned; no "ethics hotline estoppel"; protective order trumped public access

So many legal ethics issues involve competing duties.  Here's an article, unfortunately behind a registration wall, about a California lawyer who was involved in a trade secrets case.  There was a protective order in place but the opposing party put the actual trade secret into the publicly accessible court file rather than under seal.  Normally that would destroy the trade secrets protection.  The lawyer called the opposing party and called the state bar ethics hotline.  Then she informed her client of the public access to the trade secret.  Held: regardless of what the hotline might have said, and regardless of the public access, the lawyer was sanctioned for violation of the protective order.  There will shortly be an appellate opinion that will provide full details.

"You are a tyrant!"

I gather that this is more a matter of judicial etiquette than judicial ethics, but when was the last time a sitting state supreme court justice heckled the United States Attorney General during a speech?  (An incident made all the more newsworthy by the AG's collapse a few minutes later.)

Can Louisiana lawyers blog?

A recently filed lawsuit claims that the new Louisiana rules on lawyer advertising effectively prohibit blogging.

More on Public Defender Funding

The New York Times has published this editorial about the public defender funding crisis.  The editorial comes on the heels of this story that we highlighted on the blog a couple of weeks ago.

It's nice to see the issue getting some high profile media attention, but I fear that the problem will only get resolved if public defenders stop taking cases that they don't have enough time or resources to handle ethically.  Unless the system comes to a halt, it seems unlikely to me that state legislatures will make this issue a priority.

In Memoriam: Dean Mary Daly

I was deeply saddened to learn this morning of the passing of St. John's Law Dean and ethics scholar, Mary Daly.  She was a highly regarded legal ethicist and a widely admired dean and colleague. 

I only had the pleasure of meeting Dean Daly a few times when I was a newcomer to the profession but still remember and appreciate her kindness and generosity.  My condolences to those of you who had the good fortune of knowing her better than I did.

Signs o the times? DLA Piper asks Partners to Contribute Capital.

I'm in Minneapolis, so the reference to Prince seemed appropriate.  

DLA Piper has asked partners to contribute up to $150,000 to shore up its balance sheets, according to this report.  Some said it was good, others bad, some characterized it as a pay cut, others as a prudent move... perhaps it's a sign o the times, however we characterize it.

Bryan Cave says no raises, no bonuses, but no layoffs, according to this article.

And

Mayer Browns lays of more than 30, according to this

Now, how do I write a blurb using "Purple Rain..."

Big Ohio Firm's TM Suit Against Blockshopper Proceeding

I don't want to mention its name for fear of a trademark suit, but there's a large law firm headquartered in Ohio (I hope Ohio doesn't start suing people who use its name) that has the initials J D (and I think it used to be J D R P), that filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement against a firm for linking to pages on the firm's web page.  I blogged about it below.   

Just now, I read a news blip on BNA that said the judge had denied a 12(b)(6) motion. I can't find the papers on line, however, but according to the report, the judge denied receiving amicus briefs in the case.

This is, unless there's something I haven't seen about the case, beyond the pale.  I hope the judge changes his mind accepts amicus help, because the notion that there's a trademark violation in this context is, um, novel.

Update:  The opinion is here.  I litigated TM cases, teach IP, and this is absurd, in my humble opinion.  I only know that, in my view, the only thing that has tarnished J D's reputation is this lawsuit.

Supreme Court Cert in Judicial Case

• Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22. Did a West Virginia Supreme Court justice's failure to recuse himself from participation in the appeal of a $50 million jury verdict against a company whose chief executive officer was a substantial contributor to the justice's campaign for his seat on the court violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?

Travel Time and Billing

In In re Babcock & Wilson, 526 F.3d 824 (5th Cir. 2008), the court addressed whether the district court had erred in awarding a firm only 50% of its usual hourly rates for time its lawyers spent traveling, but not working, in a bankruptcy proceeding. The statute, 11 USC 330, gives broad discretion to district courts, the Fifth Circuit ultimately held, and so it affirmed the trial court's award of only 50% of the rate for time spent traveling. It suggests, in my view, that any firm seeking compensation for such time be sure to make the record clear that firms in the locality charge for travel time at full rates.

Interesting case in itself, but it reminded me also of the related issue of whether while traveling a lawyer could work on another matter, and bill the time to both clients. (The ABA, y'all know, has said 'no' to that.) Obviously, if there's work the lawyer could be doing for the travel-client, she should travel and work; but what if the lawyer has nothing she can do for the travel-client? If the lawyer can't bill time spent while traveling for the other client and also bill the travel time, then the rational lawyer (rational in terms of self-interest, at least) sits on the plane and enjoys a movie, and does the work for the other client later. I don't see the benefit of that approach. Now, granted, a non-self interested lawyer will work for the second client, and not charge the travel time to the first client, thus putting the client's interest ahead of her own. But, I doubt that happens that much, and so we end up with the lawyer traveling, doing nothing, but then working on the weekend for the other client.

Maybe I'm too cynical.