Welcome to our 3d Ed and CasebookPlus!

Welcome back; it’s hard for me to believe it’s Fall semester already.  This summer, I taught a fully -asynchronous PR course @ Wake Forest University School of Law using our new 3d edition.

This new edition has several innovative components, for online courses and traditional courses, including multiple choice questions via CasebookPlus that students can take as they study the text, audio mini-lectures on particularly challenging or important content, and learning outcomes tracked to the multiple choice questions – great for formative assessment exercises!

We’ve also included new role-play simulations in each chapter.

Access sample syllabi (including for 2- and 3-credit courses) here, and email us (murphyme@wfu.edu) if you’d like the password to our power point slides for each chapter.

If it’s your first time using CasebookPlus, check out this tutorial.

Welcome!  We look forward to your feedback.

 

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 (3d ed. 2017).   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.

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

The Authors (Bruce A. Green, Peter A. Joy, Sung Hui Kim, Renee Newman Knake, Ellen Murphy, Russell G. Pearce & Laurel S. Terry)

Summer PR Course – Week 1 Questions

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)

 

NC’s First 2017 FEO Permits Subscriber Based Texts that Invite Subscriber to Call Lawyer

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.

 

ABA Opinion Suggests Lawyer Must Understand More of the “How” of Technology to Satisfy the Rules

Yesterday, the ABA issued a formal opinion on attorney email encryption, providing that while encryption is not required always, it may be – and to determine if it is, a lawyer must understand certain things, including how information is transmitted and where it is stored.

Model Rule 1.4 may require a lawyer to discuss security safeguards with clients. Under certain circumstances, the lawyer may need to obtain informed consent from the client regarding whether to the use enhanced security measures, the costs involved, and the impact of those costs on the expense of the representation where nonstandard and not easily available or affordable security methods may be required or requested by the client. Reasonable efforts, as it pertains to certain highly sensitive information, might
require avoiding the use of electronic methods or any technology to communicate with the client altogether.

Great summary of (and link to) the opinion here.

H/T to Jim Calloway @ Law Practice Tips.

Thoughts on ABA Formal Opinion 476

When a lawyers tries to withdraw for a client’s failure to pay, the lawyer must take care to avoid breaching the Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality, according to the December 2016 opinion. But what does this mean, practically speaking?  I see this as yet another tension between the law as a profession v. the law as a business.

If a buyer repudiates a contract, the seller can cancel without judicial approval. A lawyer cannot do so, necessarily, when a client repudiates a contract by failing to pay. This reality existed before this opinion; the opinion does not change things. But it is notable that the structure of the process found in this opinion increases uncertainty for the lawyer and therefore the costs of doing business. A lawyer can’t be a professional unless she can get paid.

More thoughts via the ABA Journal article Lawyers Should Tread Carefully Before Quitting a Troublesome Client.