Welcome to the Contemporary Approach to Professional Responsibility Blog


Welcome! We would like you to join our community as we promote study of, and debate regarding, the professional responsibility of lawyers.  Although our blog will serve as a resource for users of Professional Responsibility:  A Contemporary Approach (2010), the current developments, innovative teaching materials, and commentary should be thought-provoking and fun for all those interested in the legal profession.  Please feel free to share your ideas and we will post as much as we can.

Tonight Show Parody Advertisement for Baker and Hostetler

Inspired by Baker and Hostetler’s representation of House Republicans in their suit against President Obama, Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show prepared this parody ad.  It appears at 2:43 of the clip.  H/t to Joe Patrice of Above the Law.

Anti-gay slurs merit suspension: New Jersey Supreme Court

OTHERWISE: Anti-gay slurs merit suspension: New Jersey Supreme Court.
In I/M/O Jared Stolz an insurance defense lawyer , has been suspended for three months because over a period of time he insulted his adversary with anti-gay slurs. He aggravated the situation by belated apology and by denying to a court that he had received documents which he had in fact gotten. It is a case of a lawyer who, overwhelmed by his responsibilities, reacted in a deplorable way.

More Evidence for the Value of Our Online Multiple Choice Questions

The New York Times highlights a study finding that active learning, including the use of online exercises, helps “black students cut in half their score gap with white students” and “eliminat[e] the gap between first-generation students and other students.”

Correction Teacher’s Manual Chapter 2, Question 2-13

The error below, from p. 28 of the Teacher’s Manual is that he correct answer should be (B) — this is not a unauthorized practice of law.  The explanation is correct and provides the rationale for an answer of B.  The purpose of the question is to highlight the Rule 5.5(d)(1) exception for in-house counsel, as well as the difference between Rule 5.5(d)(1) and Rule 5.5(c) which requires that the out of jurisdiction practice be temporary in order to qualify for one of its exceptions to unauthorized paractice.  Of course, if the in-house work does require “pro hac vice admission,” then the Rule 5.5(d)(1) does not apply unless the “lawyer is authorized by federal or other law or rule to provide [services] in [the] jurisdiction” per Rule 5.5(d)(2).


[Question 2-13, Casebook p. 58]

Does Joan commit UPL if she leaves F&I to become in-house counsel at Monolith, Inc., located in Sirius?

(A) Yes

(B) No

Correct Answer: (A) (B)

Even though this position is not temporary, and therefore does not fall under the exceptions in Rule 5.5(c), it does fall under the exception in Rule 5.5(d)(1) for services “provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates [that] are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission.”

Lawyer can cite judges’ praise in advertising

OTHERWISE: Lawyer can cite judges' praise in advertising.
Plaintiff’s employment lawyer Andrew Dwyer has won high praise from judges in their findings in support of counsel fees under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. He uses the judges’ words in his firm’s website. The New Jersey Supreme Court barred such advertising as “misleading”. The Third Circuit overturned the New Jersey rule:

“Guideline 3 as applied to Dwyer’s accurate quotes from judicial opinions thus violates his First Amendment right to advertise his commercial services. Requiring Dwyer to reprint in full on his firm’s website the opinions noted above is not reasonably related to preventing consumer deception. To the extent the excerpts of these opinions could possibly mislead the public, that potential deception is not clarified by Guideline 3. In any event, what is required by the Guideline overly burdens Dwyer’s right to advertise. “