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 (3d 2017), 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.
The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) has released the third edition of its book with sample engagement letters: Engagement Letters A Guide for Practitioners (3rd ed. 2017). It is also available as a free pdf. These samples can be useful when teaching Chapter 2, Section III on Creating the Lawyer-Client Relationship. (Hat Tip to the Elder Law Prof Blog for this news item.)
P.S. For those who don’t know, ACTEC has also issued commentaries on the Model Rules.
Source: OTHERWISE: Avvo, Rocket Lawyer, Legal Zoom Blocked by New Jersey Supreme Court Ethics Committees
Opinion 732 – AVVO, Legal Zoom, Rocket Lawyer
NJ Supreme Court Committees: Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Attorney Advertising, Unauthorized Practice of Law
Responding to an inquiry by the New Jersey State Bar Association, the New Jersey Law Journal reports today that a binding joint Opinion of three New Jersey Supreme Court Committees has found that AVVO Legal Services fee plan violates the Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The business model runs afoul of RPC 5.4 (a) bar on division of fees with non-lawyers and constitutes an impermissible referral fee in violation of RPC 7.2 (c).
New Jersey lawyers are barred from participating in AVVO Legal Services.
The Opinion is binding subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court itself.
Legal Zoom and Rocket Lawyer were found to be permissible legal services plans, but lawyers may not participate until the plan is properly registered with the Supreme Court.
AVVO asserted a First Amendment defense but the Committees responded:
AVVO asserted that its marketing scheme is commercial speech that must be tested against the intermediate scrutiny standard applied to First Amendment commercial speech. The Committees are not restricting Avvo’s marketing; the focus of this Joint Opinion is on the for-profit lawyer referral program and sharing of a legal fee with a nonlawyer. The First Amendment does not protect lawyers who seek to participate in prohibited attorney referral programs or engage in impermissible fee sharing.
NOTICE TO THE BARLAWYER PARTICIPATION IN THE AVVO LEGAL SERVICE PROGRAM AND IN LEGAL ZOOM AND ROCKET LAWYER LEGAL SERVICE PLANS
On June 21, 2017, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Committee on Attorney Advertising, and Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law issued a Joint Opinion (ACPE Opinion 732, CAA Opinion 44, UPL Opinion 54) stating that the legal service program operated by Avvo through its website is an impermissible lawyer referral service, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), and comprises improper fee sharing with a nonlawyer in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a). New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the Avvo legal service program. The Joint Opinion further states that LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer appear to be offering legal service plans that have not been registered pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3(e)(4)(vii). New Jersey lawyers may not participate in the LegalZoom or Rocket Lawyer legal service plans because they are not registered with the New Jersey Supreme Court (Administrative Office of the Courts).
Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D.,
Acting Administrative Director of the Courts
In my summer asynchronous PR course @WFULawSchool, I had my students include a PR question they have as part of their intro discussion post. It’s always interesting to see what students are thinking about with respect to PR, before class starts. I put them together in a video for the students and talked through each one – here they are! (with edits and all identifying info deleted)
Call for Papers
AALS Section on Professional Responsibility
The Ethics of Legal Education
2018 AALS Annual Meeting
San Diego, CA
January 3-6, 2018
The Section on Professional Responsibility is pleased to announce a Call for Papers for the Section’s 2018 Program: The Ethics of Legal Education. In addition to featuring invited speakers (Professor Joan Howarth, Dean Andrew Perlman, and Dean Daniel Rodriguez), we will select up to two speakers from this call.
This panel will explore the ethical challenges U.S. law schools have faced during the past decade and will consider the path ahead. Speakers will address various subjects that may include: alternative and accelerated degree programs, for-profit law schools, accreditation decisions, admissions and scholarship practices, employment issues, and litigation filed by students and alumni against law schools. The panel will explore the factors that have influenced ethical and values-based decision-making, leadership challenges, and how law school leaders’ ethics and values in this area may influence the future of the legal education and the legal profession.
Participants need not write a paper, but will have the option to publish a paper if they choose to do so.
Any member of the full-time faculty of an AALS member school may submit a 500-1500 word proposal by August 15, 2017 to Renee Knake at firstname.lastname@example.org. The title of the email submission should read: Submission – 2018 AALS Section on Professional Responsibility.
The Planning Committee for the Annual Meeting of the Section on Professional Responsibility will review all submissions and select up to two papers by September 1, 2017. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Any questions should be directed to 2018 Program Co-chairs Renee Knake at email@example.com or Paula Schaefer at firstname.lastname@example.org.
For those of you following the Dewey & LeBoeuf criminal trial, you know that the jury deadlocked in October 2015 after nearly six months of deliberations on dozens of charges against Steven H. Davis, the former chairman of Dewey, and two other former executives of the law firm, Stephen DiCarmine and Joel Sanders. The three men were accused of being the architects of an accounting fraud that enabled Dewey to defraud its lenders and creditors during much of the financial crisis.
In January and February 2016, Manhattan Prosecutors reached deferred prosecution agreements with Steven H. Davis and Zachary Warren, one of the original defendants.
The Manhattan prosecutors retried the case against DiCarmine and Sanders, the remaining defendants, in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. In May 2017, the jury delivered a split verdict. Joel Sanders, the law firm’s former chief financial officer, was convicted on three criminal counts. He could be sentenced up to four years in prison. Stephen DiCarmine, the former executive director, was acquitted of the same charges.
Update on the case can be found here.
Last month, NC adopted 2017 FEO 1, finding:
(1) that lawyers may use subscriber based text services to send texts with links to the lawyers website; and
(2) it is not a violation of 7.3(a) if the subscriber has the option to reply to the text message as follows:
- Texting Service: Have you or someone you know been injured at work? If so, type YES.
- Subscriber: YES
- Texting Service: Lawyer can help. May we contact you at this number? If so, type YES.
- Subscriber: YES
- Texting: Service Thank you. A representative will contact you soon.
- If the subscriber replies YES to both questions, ABC Texting provides the subscriber’s cell phone number to Lawyer. Lawyer will then contact subscriber directly.
The committee also confirmed that it is not a violation of 7.3(a) if the second text message from includes the lawyer’s phone number and an invitation to call the lawyer.
Did Jeff Sessions violate Rule 1.11 if he participated in the decision to fire Jim Comey? The Rule 1.11 issue depends on whether the firing implicated Comey’s investigation of the Russian connection to the Trump campaign. If so, does Sessions’s participation in the campaign and/or personal contacts with the Russians require him to withdraw under Rule 1.11? See, for example, this column on Sessions and the Comey firing.