Legal ethics odds and ends (November 15, 2011)

• ABA Journal: "ABA Committee Appears Poised to Approve New Law School Disclosure Requirements" Funny how fast a bureaucratic organization can move once Congress talks about holding hearings. [edited to clarify my point]

• California ethics committee (COPRAC) opines that consent under no-contact rule may be implied consent. (In my view, this is a no-brainer. The old rule required "express consent" and the committee deleted the word "express." The Restatement LGL also says that consent may be implied. If you've ever worked on an acquisition, you know that all sorts of communications between lawyers and opposing parties are taking place, through implied consent.)  (h/t: Law of Criminal Defense)

• A new font, just for lawyers?  It looks nice but who wants to pay for a font?

• ESPN: The lawyer who tipped off former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel to a potential scandal has been defending himself in a disciplinary hearing that's focusing on the duty of confidentiality that's owed to a (putative) prospective client.

• NYT: As long as we're discussing football scandals, the Pennsylvania Attorney General also was a member of the Penn State Board of Trustees found himself in an uncomfortable position: he knew about the pending investigaiton but felt he couldn't disclose it to the Board.

• WSJ: Study shows fewer women entering biglaw practice.