Legal Ethics Forum

"Human Rights Lawyer Sentenced in Saudi for Signing Protest"

Story at Lawyerist. Excerpt:

International human rights watchdog Amnesty International reported on Wednesday that Saudi authorities have sentenced to prison a prominent human rights lawyer for signing a petition in 2011 that happened to criticize Saudi Arabian authorities for their heavy-handedness in dealing with 16 reformists.

The lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair has been a defense lawyer in prominent human rights cases in Saudi Arabia. He was recently involved in leading the defense of Raif Badawi, a well-known Saudi Arabian blogger. Badawi was sentenced this July to seven years in prison, and 600 whip lashes for insulting religious authorities by creating and managing a website, among other charges.

 

Updates on the IRS scandal

There's a story at USA Today about how conflicts of interest require the government to pay for private counsel for IRS personnel sued for their alleged roles in the targeting of conservative groups.

And here's the amended complaint that names an IRS lawyer:

Download Second-amended-complaint-filed-redacted

 

"Government Files Response to Tsarnaev’s Motion to Vacate Special Administrative Measures"

Coverage at Lawfare. Excerpt:

In essence, the [government's] opposition filing makes two arguments: first, that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Tsarnaev’s motion because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and second, that the SAMs are both properly authorized and constitutional.

Florida Bar Reverses Staff Opinion that had Limited LinkedIn Usage

Social media and ethics is in a huge state of flux, a point proven by the recent "reversal" of a staff opinion that had limited Florida lawyers' use of linked in.  An article about it is here.

Paul F. Teich, "Are Lawyers Truly Greedy? An Analysis of Relevant Empirical Evidence"

Article. Abstract:

A serious and widespread complaint about lawyers is the charge that they are motivated by greed. More than half of Americans polled during the past two decades have agreed with the following statements: "lawyers are greedy", "lawyers make too much money", "lawyers charge excessive fees", and "lawyers are more interested in making money than in serving their clients". Today, Americans commonly assert that lawyers cheat their clients by hiding the reasons fees are imposed and charging for services that have never been provided. Serious examination of the charge is overdue. If lawyers frequently swindle clients, a pressing ethical problem exists that bar authorities, the police, and criminal prosecutors have to confront and eliminate. Further, the public's concerns affect the business of law; the presumed cost of representation is the principal reason Americans avoid soliciting legal help. Despite the very recent downturn in demand by consumers for legal services, demand has risen dramatically during the past thirty-five years overall, and aggregate demand is significantly higher today than it was several decades ago. During the past two decades, complaints about lawyers have also grown more strident. This Article addresses a single question: Have lawyers exploited the increase in demand for their services by adopting increasingly grasping practices such as price gauging, overbilling, and aggressive collection strategies? This Article examines relevant empirical evidence and proposes an answer: the term "greedy" unquestionably fails to describe average practitioners. The great bulk of practitioners are careful to control annual increases in the size of lawyer and paralegal fees; fee averages have increased only very slowly over decades throughout the country. Practitioners frequently provide free services for which they do not bill and typically avoid overbearing collection practices (a very large share of billed fees commonly are not collected), and practitioners collectively perform hundreds of thousands of hours of community service and pro bono work annually. The value of their donated services can be conservatively estimated to be over $1 billion annually. It is also true that the evidence fails to support the view that lawyers routinely overbill. Finally, the moderate real income increase that has been experienced by the average practitioner over the recent past, while greater than that of the average American worker, is explainable as the result of two factors: an increase in productivity and relative insulation from the forces of global economic competition.

Florida law firm sues second firm for buying AdWords on the first firm's name.

Complaint. (h/t: Eric Goldman) (Earlier article by Eric:"Florida Proposed to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers")

GPS ankle bracelet can listen to attorney client conversations

Bizarre story out of Puerto Rico, from The Crime Report. Excerpt:

Puerto Rico Constitutional legal expert Carlos E. Ramos, who teaches at the Interamerican University Law School, said “the state [efforts] to listen and/or record the unauthorized conversations between a defendant with his or her lawyer through an electronic GPS-bracelet represents the most absolute and gross infringement to that person's constitutional rights.”

Michael I. Krauss "Alternate Dispute Financing and Legal Ethics: Free the Lawyers!"

Article. Abstract:

As is the case for many of our entitlements, our rights of action are protected by a less-than-full property rule. As a result, financing of litigation has been limited. The recent rise of alternate dispute financing has raised serious ethical problems. In this Article, I discuss those problems, dismiss some (but not all) of them, and suggest that pushing the protection of our entitlement to sue closer to a property rule might alleviate those problems that remain.

Former corporate GC can't use confidences to bring qui tam suit

Link to US v. FLPA below. It's a significant case. Excerpts:

This appeal reflects the tension between an attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality and the federal interest in encouraging “whistleblowers” to disclose unlawful conduct harmful to the government. We consider two questions: (1) whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert P. Patterson, Judge) correctly held that a former general counsel to defendant violated his ethical obligations under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“N.Y. Rules”) by participating in this qui tam action; and, if so, (2) whether the District Court erred in dismissing the complaint and disqualifying plaintiff, all of its general partners including the former general counsel, and its outside counsel from bringing any subsequent qui tam action based on similar facts.

First, we agree that the attorney in question, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated N.Y. Rule 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from “us[ing] confidential information of [a] former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client,” N.Y. Rule 1.9(c), except “to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary . . . to prevent the client from committing a crime,” id. 1.6(b)(2).

Second, we hold that the District Court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

Download US v FLPA

off topic: the importance of mid-sized staplers and bookweights

I'm in a great mood because my mid-sized stapler, recently lost, has been returned to me. At the risk of sounding like Milton Waddams, I must confess my firm belief that the mid-sized stapler that handles 15-40 page jobs is a vital part of being a lawyer. (Big, swing-arm staplers are overkill for those jobs and the normal sized ones don't do an adequate job. If you work in a big office, buy your own mid-size if necessary and don't share it.) And while I'm at it, I want to add a plug for the indispensable bookweight. Every lawyer should have one.