Welcome!

Welcome to our community of professional responsibility teachers! This web site provides teaching resources, ranging from syllabi and powerpoints to real time updates and videos. The web site accompanies our casebook Professional Responsibility:  A Contemporary Approach (4th ed. 2020). The Casebook uses the problem method and offers learning outcomes, multiple choice assessment questions, role plays and simulations, and an interactive online version that includes short audio lectures. Please feel free to share your ideas and resources with our community of adopters.

You may review the Table of Contents here.

We look forward to getting to know you and working with you and our fellow adopters.

Renee Knake Jefferson, Russell G. Pearce, Bruce A. Green, Peter A. Joy, Sung Hui Kim, M. Ellen Murphy,  Laurel S. Terry, & Lonnie T. Brown, Jr.

 ABA Opinion: Reply all error does not violate RPC 4.2

Source: OTHERWISE: ABA Opinion: Reply all error does not violate RPC 4.2

Formal Opinion 503 addresses ABA Model Rule 4.2,  the no-contact rule, which says that a lawyer representing a client may not communicate about the matter with another represented person, unless that person’s lawyer consents.

The new ABA Opinion summarizes its conclusions:

“Reply All” in Electronic Communications In the absence of special circumstances, lawyers who copy their clients on an electronic communication sent to counsel representing another person in the matter impliedly consent to receiving counsel’s “reply all” to the communication. Thus, unless that result is intended, lawyers should not copy their clients on electronic communications to such counsel; instead, lawyers should separately forward these communications to their clients. Alternatively, lawyers may communicate in advance to receiving counsel that they do not consent to receiving counsel replying all, which would override the presumption of implied consent.

The Pitfalls and False Promises of Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms – Yale Law Journal – Forum

The Yale Law Journal – Forum: The Pitfalls and False Promises of  Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms Stephen P. Younger ABSTRACT.  Whether non…

Source: OTHERWISE: The Yale Law Journal – Forum: The Pitfalls and False Promises of Nonlawyer Ownership of Law Firms

 

ABSTRACT. Whether nonlawyers should have ownership roles in law firms has been and remains a hotly debated topic. The debate concerns potential reforms to Rule 5.4 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which sets guidelines for maintaining the professional independence of lawyers, as well as the impact of those revisions on the legal profession. Although advocates for such reform argue that nonlawyers must be allowed ownership roles in law firms in order to foster innovation and increase access to legal services, many lawyers have raised significant concerns about the impact that nonlawyer ownership would have on the independence of lawyers. Lawyers have concerns about allowing nonlawyers—who have not sworn to uphold the ethical obligations that attorneys promise to uphold when becoming members of the bar—to have decision-making authority in the day-to-day practice of law. There is also no evidence that nonlawyer ownership actually improves access to justice for the needy. This Essay argues against rewriting Rule 5.4 to allow nonlawyer ownership of law firms. It concludes that nonlawyer ownership not only fails to solve the problems that advocates of reform promise it will address but in fact creates meaningful risks for the legal profession.

 Comparative awards must be verifiable – New Jersey Supreme Court – Advertising Committee

Source: OTHERWISE: Comparative awards must be verifiable – New Jersey Supreme Court – Advertising Committee

Supplementing Opinion 42:
Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(a)(3) – Honors, Awards, and Accolades that Compare Lawyers’ Services With Other Lawyers’ Services

 

The ethics rules governing advertising are intended to protect the public from statements that are false, deceptive, or misleading. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383 (1977). Advertising that makes claims about the “quality of the legal services . . . are not susceptible of measurement or verification; accordingly, such claims may be so likely to be misleading as to warrant restriction.” Id. at 383-84.
When lawyers state that they are included on a list called “Top Attorneys,” for example, the lawyers are making a statement of fact – they were included on the list – but they are also making a statement that supports an inference about the quality of their legal services, that their services are “top” or better than other lawyers’ services.
Such statements can be misleading. See Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm’n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91, 101 (1990) (advertising a lawyer certification issued by an organization that does not inquire into the lawyer’s fitness can be misleading).
Accordingly, Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(a)(3) prohibits lawyers from making comparative statements. When referring to an accolade or honor that compares lawyers, the factual basis for the comparison must be verifiable. RPC 7.1(a)(3)(ii). Further, the conferrer of the award must have made appropriate “inquiry into the fitness of the lawyer.” Official Comment to Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1. See also In re Opinion 39, 197 N.J. 66, 76 (2008)

Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE) Opinion 744 – Lawyers May Use Regulated Cannabis, and Operate or Invest In a Regulated Cannabis Business; No Violation of RPC 8.4(b).

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics has published this opinion. Under New Jersey law and practice it is subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court on the Justices own motion, or the request of any member of the bar or any bar association.

No such review is expected. – GWC

Source: Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE) Opinion 744 – Lawyers May Use Regulated Cannabis, and Operate or Invest In a  Regulated Cannabis Business; No Violation of RPC 8.4(b).

 

OPINION 744
Lawyers May Use Regulated Cannabis,
and Operate or Invest In a Regulated
Cannabis Business; No Violation of RPC
8.4(b)
The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics received an inquiry about whether New Jersey lawyers may, consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct, use regulated cannabis. In addition, the Secretary received attorney ethics research assistance hotline calls from New Jersey lawyers who inquire about the application of the Rules if they were to operate or invest in regulated cannabis businesses. As explained below, the Committee determines that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not forbid lawyers from engaging in such conduct. While the conduct remains technically illegal under federal law, it does not, as a general matter, violate Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) (prohibiting lawyers from committing “a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects”).

OTHERWISE: ‘ Crime-fraud exception compels John Eastman to turn over emails for Donald Trump re January 6| The Recorder

Concluding that Donald Trump and his lawyer and former law dean John Eastman “more likely than not” conspired to obstruct Congress. California Federal District Judge David Carter has in Eastman v. Thompson Carter concluded the crime-fraud exception applied to a draft memo for Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani that otherwise would be protected by attorney-client privilege. – GWC

Source: OTHERWISE: ‘ Crime-fraud exception compels John Eastman to turn over emails for Donald Trump re January 6| The Recorder

California: 25th Annual Statewide Ethics Symposium

Source: 25th Annual Statewide Ethics Symposium

Presented by the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct

April 15, 2022  
9:30 a.m.–4:10 p.m. Live Stream via Zoom
Cost: Free (Registration limited to 1000 participants)

This program offers up to 5 hours of participatory MCLE credit (4.0 hours of legal ethics and 1.0 hour of elimination of bias). This program has also been approved for legal malpractice legal specialization credit by the State Bar.

Program schedule
Registration information
Printable brochure
Register online

Program schedule

9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. Welcoming Remarks

  • Justin J. Fields: Chair, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct
  • Ruben Duran: Chair, Board of Trustees of the State Bar of California

9:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Recent Developments in Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct–What You Need to Know

This panel will discuss important developments in legal ethics, centering on recent and developing advisory ethics opinions prepared by COPRAC and other professional conduct developments. Topics will include client file release and retention duties, ethics of in-house counsel, cryptocurrency, and civility and professionalism.

  • Justin J. Fields: Moderator; Chair, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct; Partner, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco
  • Sarah J. Banola: Vice-Chair, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct; Partner, BRB Law LLP, Oakland
  • Dena M. Roche: Advisor, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct; Partner, O’Rielly & Roche LLP, San Francisco

11:10 a.m.–12:25 p.m. Entry Into the Practice of Law

This panel will address significant issues, impediments, and developments related to entry into the practice of law. These will include barriers to admission related to legal education and bar pass rates, the level of ethics education new lawyers receive, and ethical pitfalls new lawyers face, as well as proposals to expand access to legal service.

  • Brandon N. Krueger: Moderator; Member, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct; Shareholder, Sall Spencer Callas & Krueger, A Law Corporation, Laguna Beach
  • Carole J. Buckner: Partner and General Counsel, Procopio, San Diego
  • Erin M. Joyce: Shareholder, Erin Joyce Law P.C., Pasadena
  • Toby J. Rothschild: Of Counsel, OneJustice, Westminster

12:25 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m. Ethical Issues – Attorney Fees and Billing

This panel will address ethics issues and recent developments regarding attorney fees and billing practices. The panel will discuss proposed COPRAC opinions regarding flat fees and conversion clauses in contingent fee agreements and the impact of the current Rules of Professional Conduct, recent cases and developments in the field of attorney fees, billing, mandatory fee arbitration, suspect billing practices, and other fee and billing ethics issues.

  • Kenneth E. Bacon: Moderator; Member, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct; Senior Counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., Sacramento
  • Joel Mark: Attorney, Joel Mark, Esq., Palm Desert
  • Lorraine M. Walsh: Attorney, Law Office Lorraine M Walsh, Walnut Creek

2:55 p.m.–4:10 p.m. Eliminating Bias in the Courtroom

This panel will discuss eliminating bias in the litigation arena with a focus on the courtroom. This panel will cover recent studies in bias on the bench, new laws governing jury selection in criminal cases, and guidance on how to eliminate conscious an unconscious bias from trial work in the context of ethical requirements.

  • Hunter E. Starr: Moderator; Member, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct; Deputy District Attorney, Kern County District Attorney, Bakersfield
  • Amyra C. Cobb-Hampton: Deputy Public Defender, Solano County Office of the Public Defender, Fairfield
  • Terrance J. Evans: Partner, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco
  • Ivy B. Fitzpatrick: Managing Deputy District Attorney, Riverside County District Attorney, Riverside
  • Jeanine E. Kraybill, PhD: Associate Professor of Political Science and Pre-Law Program Director, California State University Bakersfield, Bakersfield

Registration information

This year the Ethics Symposium is being offered for free and is limited to 1,000 registrants. Register online no later than April 6, 2022.

Note: All registrants will receive a confirmation email with the link and password to the Zoom webinar. Only those who attend will receive an email following the event, containing a link to their MCLE certificate. When registering for the event, provide the email address associated with your Zoom account. You will use this email address to log into the event and this will allow us to verify your attendance.

MCLE credit

This program offers up to 5 hours of participatory MCLE credit (4.0 hours of legal ethics and 1.0 hour of elimination of bias). This program has also been approved for legal malpractice legal specialization credit by the State Bar. The State Bar and the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct are approved State Bar of California MCLE providers.

Questions

For questions regarding registration, program content, or requests for special assistance, please call 415-538-2116.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations for this event should notify Angela Marlaud at: (415) 538-2116. Please provide notification at least 72 hours prior to the event to allow sufficient time to make arrangements for accommodations.

NJ Supreme Court -Notice – Arbitration Provisions in Retainer Agreements and the Scope of an Attorney’s Disclosure Requirements (Delaney v. Dickey) – Comments Requested by March 23, 2022

In Delaney v. Dickey the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an attorney may  include provisions in their retainer agreements that bind the client to arbitrate a future fee dispute or legal malpractice action, provided lawyers adequately explain the provisions to the clients. But the court said that their opinion would not be the last word – and announced it was referring the issue to its Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics.

Sometimes you get what you asked for: here the ACPE urged the Court to reconsider its decision, saying that obtaining informed consent to arbitration of malpractice before any dispute has arisen is a practical impossibility.

The link below will bring you to the ACPE’s report and proposals in the event the Court does not agree to revise their view on the issue. – GWC

[Disclosure – I am a member of the ACPE]

Source: Notice – Arbitration Provisions in Retainer Agreements and the Scope of an Attorney’s Disclosure Requirements (Delaney v. Dickey) – Comments Requested by March 23, 2022

NOTICE TO THE BAR – Supreme Court of New Jersey
ARBITRATION PROVISIONS IN RETAINER AGREEMENTS AND
THE SCOPE OF AN ATTORNEY’S DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(DELANEY V. DICKEY) – COMMENTS REQUESTED
The Supreme Court requested the Advisory Committee on
Professional Ethics (ACPE) to study the issues arising in the case
Delaney v. Dickey, 244 N.J. 466 (2020), and to “make recommendations to [the] Court and propose further guidance on the scope of an attorney’s disclosure requirements.” 244 N.J. at 474. The Court in Delaney found that lawyers may include provisions in their retainer agreements that bind the client to arbitrate a future fee dispute or legal malpractice action, provided that the lawyer adequately explains the provisions to the client. In its attached report, a majority of the ACPE has recommended that the Court reconsider permitting lawyers to include provisions in their retainer agreements that require the client to arbitrate future fee disputes or legal malpractice actions. Should the Court determine not to
reconsider, the full ACPE included in its report both proposed further
guidance on lawyers’ disclosure requirements and suggested uniform
language intended to ensure that lawyers adequately explain any such arbitration provisions to clients.
The Court requests comments on the ACPE report and  recommendations by March 23, 2022. Comments should be sent to:
Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics
Attention: Carol Johnston, Committee Secretary
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 970
Trenton, NJ 08625-0970

 New Jersey Legal Community Urges Comprehensive Effort to Reduce Bias and Discrimination in the Judicial System

Source: OTHERWISE: New Jersey Legal Community Urges Comprehensive Effort to Reduce Bias and Discrimination in the Judicial System

NEW BRUNSWICK – The New Jersey State Bar Association urged the Judiciary to take a holistic and comprehensive approach in the effort to reduce bias in the jury selection process to ensure defendants in criminal cases face a more fair and representative jury. 
   
NJSBA President Domenick Carmagnola delivered a powerful speech to the Judiciary’s Judicial Conference on Jury Selection held last week. He said it is critical to collect and examine data, as well as remain open-minded and thoughtful in the path to reform the system for the better, especially for Black criminal defendants who, in New Jersey, are incarcerated 12 times more often than their white counterparts – the highest disparity in the nation.  

“We believe this conversation and effort should be expansive, thoughtful, and comprehensive in its focus on rooting out bias – both implicit and explicit. The pursuit of a representative justice system, one that all of our citizens can trust and believe in – and be proud of – requires a complex, deep dialogue in order to determine the best ways to rid our system of the systemic and harmful presence of implicit bias and prejudice in jury selection. … We sincerely hope these matters are not pre-ordained and that this is the start of a meaningful journey to reform and improve our system of justice,” he testified. “Action for the sake of action is not the answer, and the wrong action could damage our justice system significantly and have dire consequences for the lives and the liberty of participants in it. We agree that this is the time to act – but we must do so with the goal of getting it right… An appropriate starting point is the means which the pool of jurors is created; greater diversity can most immediately be achieved by the expansion of that pool, and by an examination of the persons who are excused from jury duty, as the Supreme Court required in Dangcil. A critical area of study should be the voir dire process and how courts address challenges, both for-cause and peremptory. Reducing or eliminating peremptory challenges, which have long been viewed as the only tool available to Black and other criminal defendants of color to ensure unbiased juries, should certainly not be viewed as the only available mechanism when, as we have heard, and as we discuss in our interim report, other means achieve these essential goals.”

Read the full remarks here or watch them here
    
Carmagnola’s comments were amplified by the over 20 affinity and county bar associations that joined in support of the NJSBA Working Group on Jury Selection Interim Report, which was submitted to the Judiciary in advance of the Judicial Conference. 

 GOP Election Lawyer must face Committee on Grievances

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg We are accustomed to the idea that attorney discipline is the province of the state where we took th…

Source: OTHERWISE: GOP Election Lawyer must face Committee on Grievances

 

Personal passion, zealous loyalty to a cause does not justify litigation.  RPC 1.1 Competence demands “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”  It is failure to heed that principle that led federal District Judge James E. Boasberg to refer Minnesota lawyer Erick G. Kaardal to the District’s Committee on Grievances.  Boasberg had dismissed a suit brought by Kaardal, a Minnesota lawyer, on behalf of an ad hoc group called Wisconsin Voters Alliance.  The case challenged the lawfulness of the election of Joseph R. Biden as President of the United States.

Remote Work: San Francisco Bar Association Advice in Ethics Opinion 2021-1 – Legal Ethics Advisorremotework

Source: OTHERWISE: Remote Work: San Francisco Bar Association Advice in Ethics Opinion 2021-1 – Legal Ethics Advisorremotework

OPINION 2021-1
[Issue date: August 2021]
ISSUE:
Is a lawyer, who is licensed in one or more jurisdictions but practices law remotely from another jurisdiction where the lawyer
resides and is not licensed, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law?
DIGEST:
A lawyer who is not licensed in California, and who does not advertise or otherwise hold himself or herself out as a licensed
California lawyer, does not establish an office or other systematic or continuous presence for the practice of law in
California, and does not represent a California person or entity, but is merely physically present in California while using
modern technology to remotely practice law in compliance with the rules of the jurisdiction where the lawyer is licensed,
should not be held in violation of California’s Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL”) rule and laws, specifically California
Rules of Professional Conduct (“CRPC”) Rule 5.5, or the State Bar Act, Business & Professions (“B&P”) Code §§6125-6126.
If such a lawyer does represent a California person or entity, whether the lawyer violates the UPL rule and laws will depend
on the nature of the representation, whether the representation complies with the regulations of the jurisdiction where the
lawyer is licensed, the role of other California lawyers in the representation, and other factors relevant to whether the
California client is protected consistent with the purpose of the UPL rule and laws.
A lawyer who is licensed to practice law in California, but who resides in another jurisdiction where the lawyer is not licensed
while continuing to remotely practice law under the lawyer’s California license, must adhere to California’s rules and law as
required to maintain a California law license and must also comply with the applicable regulations of the jurisdiction where
the lawyer resides but is not licensed. CRPC Rule 5.5(a); see also ABA Model Rule 5.5(a). A California lawyer who fails to
comply with that jurisdiction’s UPL regulations could be at risk for criminal and/or civil liability and could also be at risk for
discipline for violation of CRPC Rule 5.5(a).
AUTHORITIES INTERPRETED:
California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 5.5. Business and Professions Code sections 6125, 6126.

Professional Responsibility Blog: ABA issues new opinion on lawyers passive investment in law firms that include non-lawyer owners

Source: Professional Responsibility Blog: ABA issues new opinion on lawyers passive investment in law firms that include non-lawyer owners

 

Thanks to Alberto Bernabe for the tip:

A lawyer may passively invest in a law firm that includes nonlawyer owners (“Alternative Business Structures” or “ABS”) operating in a jurisdiction that permits ABS entities, even if the lawyer is admitted to practice law in a jurisdiction that does not authorize nonlawyer ownership of law firms. To avoid transgressing Model Rule 5.4 or other Model Rules and to avoid imputation of conflicts under Model Rule 1.10, a passively investing lawyer must not practice law through the ABS or be held out as a lawyer associated with the ABS and cannot have access to information protected by Model Rule 1.6 without the ABS client’s informed consent or compliance with an applicable exception to Rule 1.6 adopted by the ABS jurisdiction.

Lawyers can grow, use, and get paid in marijuana: NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1225 – New York State Bar Association

Not The Onion

Ethics Opinion 1225 – New York State Bar Association

Topic: Counseling clients engaged in recreational marijuana business; accepting partial ownership of recreational marijuana business in lieu of fee; personal use of recreational marijuana.

Source: OTHERWISE: Lawyers can grow, use, and get paid in marijuana: NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1225 – New York State Bar Association

 Clients with diminished Capacity – Proposed formal opinion – California State Bar invites comments

From the digest:

In representing  a client with diminished capacity, a lawyer must sometimes make difficult judgments relating to the client’s capacity. Provided that such judgments are informed and disinterested, they should not lead to professional discipline.

When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client’s diminished capacity exposes the client to harm, the lawyer may seek the client’s informed consent to take protective measures. If the client cannot or does not give informed consent, the lawyer may be unable to protect the client against harm. A lawyer representing a competent client who may later become incapacitated may propose to the client that the client give advanced consent to protective disclosure in the event that such incapacity occurs. If appropriately limited and informed, such a consent is ethically proper.

Source: OTHERWISE: Clients with diminished Capacity – Proposed formal opinion – California State Bar invites comments

 NJ: Non-Legal Companies Offering Legal Services to Customers Engage in Unauthorized Practice; Lawyers Providing Legal Services to Company’s Customers Violate RPCs – Joint UPL/ACPE Opinion – UPL Opinion 58/ACPE Opinion 740 –

Source: OTHERWISE: NJ: Non-Legal Companies Offering Legal Services to Customers Engage in Unauthorized Practice; Lawyers Providing Legal Services to Company’s Customers Violate RPCs – Joint UPL/ACPE Opinion – UPL Opinion 58/ACPE Opinion 740 –

Two Committees of the New Jersey Supreme Court have barred a non-lawyer owned company that “matches” clients to lawyers who will represent them regarding traffic violations. The Advertising Committee itself has disciplinary authority and the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics published opinions compel compliance by any attorney practicing in the state, subject only to discretionary review by the Court itself. – GWC

“Price lists for client leads” likely violate bar on referral fees: NJ Supreme Court Committees

 

Source: OTHERWISE: “Price lists for client leads” likely violate bar on referral fees: NJ Supreme Court Committees

A Joint Opinion of two committees of the Supreme Court of New Jersey sharply cautions lawyers regarding paying marketing companies for “referrals” of clients.  The issue before the two committees Advertising and Ethics Advisory involves marketers who “price referrals” based not on advertising costs but on the potential lucrativeness of the case leads provided.

Unlike bar association opinions which provide guidance, the two New Jersey Committees carry the authority of the court – though any bar association or licensed lawyer can petition the Court for review.

– GWC

Rudy Giuliani suspended by NY Appellate Division

IN THE MATTER OF RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, AN ATTORNEY – PER CURIAM   Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department…

Source: OTHERWISE: Rudy Giuliani suspended by NY Appellate Division

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department Rolando T. Acosta, P.J., Dianne T. Renwick Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Judith J. Gische Barbara R. Kapnick, JJ. Motion No. 2021-00491 Case No. 2021-00506

In the Matter of RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI (ADMITTED AS RUDOLPH WILLIAM GIULIANI), an attorney and counselor-at law: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, (OCA ATTY. REGISTRATION NO. 1080498), Respondent. 

The Attorney Grievance Committee moves for an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) §1240.9(a)(5), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law based upon claimed violations of rules 3.3(a); 4.1; 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) (Rules of Conduct or RPC).

Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York on June 25, 1969, under the name Rudolph William Giuliani. He maintains a law office within the First Judicial Department.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client.

We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee (sometimes AGC or Committee).

Lawyers press D.C. Bar Ethics Board to investigate William Barr

Last July a distinguished group of lawyers including  ten former Presidents of the D.C.Bar joined together to file a Request for Oversight of their comprehensively detailed demand for an investigation of the conduct while in office of the former Attorney General William Barr.  Spurned by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the group has now appealed to William Kaiser, Chair of the Board on Professional Responsibility to exercise the Board’s oversight authority.

Source: OTHERWISE: Lawyers press D.C. Bar Ethics Board to investigate William Barr