legal ethics news (June 4, 2010)

At the ABA's national conference in Seattle, there's been some discussion of the regulation of law firms.  This announcement of a conference for managing partners in the UK shows that "compliance" schemes are far more prevalent over there.  Will we see more of that in the US as part of a federalization of the legal profession?       .  .  .  .  .       Here's an interesting article on the new style of litigation funding that began in Australia, moved to the UK and is here in the USA.  Some of it permits cash-strapped clients to hire biglaw firms with high overhead cost structures rather than leanly built plaintiffs firms.  Some of it is funding business vs. business litigation, rather than the personal injury suits we think of when we read about litigation funding practices.  The Chamber of Commerce issued a report calling for a ban on the new practices.  Interesting quote from the article, "'I've seen everything from funders who want to be involved in everyday management [of the suits] or funders who take a hands-off approach,' said James Hosking, a partner at Chaffetz Lindsey who has handled international arbitrations with third-party financing."       .  .  .  .  .       The "profits per partner" metric is alive and reasonably well.       .  .  .  .  .       A bar examiner from the Philippines complains about the quality of the answers he must grade, including this one, "Yes, I will exonerate her as she is guilty."       .  .  .  .  .       The Supreme Court of New Jersey's new decision in Guido v. Duane Morris will make it easier for clients in that state to "settle and sue."  Depending on your views, the case will permit clients who settle and develop buyer's remorse to turn on their lawyers, or will remove a roadblock that prevented aggrieved NJ clients from seeking redress against lawyers who inadequately guided them through settlement.  For some context, see this 2009 article recounting what happened below.  The letters that Duane Morris whote the client before settlement looked pretty comprehensive to me, and the firm says it is vigorously defending the suit.       .  .  .  .  .        Here's yet another take on what Qualcomm means for the future.       .   .  .  .  .       From George Conk, here's news that the a New Jersey judicial appointments advisory board has resigned en masse over what they say is the improper use of politics in declining to propose Associate Justice John Wallace for reappointment ("tenure").  Judicial independence is at stake, say the board members.