Supreme Court hears argument today on a lawyer’s bad advice

From today’s New York Times:

The Supreme Court is taking up the case of a longtime U.S. resident who is facing deportation to South Korea after pleading guilty to a drug crime based on his lawyer’s bad advice.

The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in an appeal by Jae Lee, who has lived in the United States for 35 years and has never been back to South Korea since coming to the United States when he was 13.

The case has taken on increased importance because President Donald Trump has promised to step up deportations, with a special focus on immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. The American Bar Association has estimated that one of every 10 criminal defendants is not an American citizen.

Lee agreed to plead guilty to possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute after his lawyer, Larry Fitzgerald, assured him that doing so would not make him subject to deportation. The lawyer was wrong.

The issue in Lee’s appeal is whether the lawyer’s recommendation to take the deal offered by prosecutors was so bad that it amounts to a violation of Lee’s constitutional right to a lawyer.

Both sides agree that Fitzgerald’s performance was deficient in representing Lee. The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that immigrants have a constitutional right to be told by their lawyers whether pleading guilty to a crime could lead to their deportation.

But Lee almost must show that the bad lawyering mattered to the outcome of the criminal case.

Full article here.

OTHERWISE: 2d Circuit rejects claim that lawyers have First Amendment right to non-lawyer equity partners //Alberto Bernabe //John Marshall law School

Source: OTHERWISE: 2d Circuit rejects claim that lawyers have First Amendment right to non-lawyer equity partners //Alberto Bernabe //John Marshall law School

Jacoby & Myers, LLP was one of the first law firms to employ large scale consumer-oriented advertising. Their slogan “It’s about time” promised efficiencies and effectiveness. However the firm’s growth stagnated as the P.C. transformed the practice of law, making it much less labor-intensive.
In hope of raising capital the firm, according to the Second Circuit’s precis, “challenge(d) the constitutionality of a collection of New York regulations and laws that together prevent for‐profit law firms from accepting capital investment from non‐lawyers. The J&M Firms allege that, if they were allowed to accept outside investment, they would be able to—and would—improve their infrastructure and efficiency and as a result reduce their fees and serve more clients, including clients who might otherwise be unable to afford their services. By impeding them from reaching this goal, the J&M Firms contend, the state has unconstitutionally infringed their rights as lawyers to associate with clients and to access 18 the courts—rights that are grounded, they argue, in the First Amendment.
The Southern District of New York’s Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of any constitutional right. The Second Circuit panel agreed in Jacoby& Myers v. The Presiding Justices. It is a decision that is a major blow to those who hoped to put a chink in the wall that bars U.S. firms from – like British and Australian firms – bringing on non-lawyer equity shareholders.
The panel (Lynch, Carney and Hellerstein) declared that “even if such rights as they claim were to be recognized, the challenged regulations withstand scrutiny because they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. We agree that under prevailing law the J&M Firms do not enjoy a First Amendment right to association or petition as representatives of their clients’ interests; and that, even if they do allege some plausible entitlement, the challenged regulations do not impermissibly infringe upon any such rights.“

The issues are thoughtfully explored by Prof. Alberto Bernabe on his Professional Responsibility Blog – below. – gwc
Professional Responsibility Blog: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejects argument that rules that ban lawyers from raising capital from non lawyers are unconstitutional

OTHERWISE: DC Bar: Lawyers Must Consider Ethics When Dissolving Law Firms | Legal Ethics in Motion

Source: OTHERWISE: DC Bar: Lawyers Must Consider Ethics When Dissolving Law Firms | Legal Ethics in Motion

by VINCENT CALARCO

Closing the doors on a law firm includes much more than just locking the door behind you. “Dissolution” means the process of terminating the law firm’s existence as a legal entity. The District of Columbia Bar recently issued an opinion that discusses the multiple rules of professional conduct come into play when considering the ethics involved in dissolving a law firm.

After the members of the firm decide to dissolve the firm, the next step is to promptly notify the firm’s clients. Timing is important because, after dissolution, the law firm no longer represents its clients. Notice of the dissolution should also be sent to opposing counsel and the tribunal.

During the dissolution period, lawyers must continue to diligently represent and communicate with clients while facilitating the client’s choice of counsel going forward and where appropriate, properly disposing of client files, funds, and any property.

Under Rule 1.16(d), if a particular lawyer and his client will be terminating their relationship then the lawyer is required to “take timely steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests” which include surrendering property and papers to the client, allowing time for the client to find other counsel and other considerations.

To read the full opinion, click here.

OTHERWISE: Fox’s Napolitano Could Face Ethics Trouble Over Wiretap Claims | New Jersey Law Journal

Source: OTHERWISE: Fox’s Napolitano Could Face Ethics Trouble Over Wiretap Claims | New Jersey Law Journal

 

by Carmen Natale

Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, recently claimed on television that former President Barack Obama enlisted the British intelligence services to wiretap Donald Trump when Trump was running for president.

Attorneys say this unverified assertion could cause Napolitano to face ethics charges, though the burden of proof to show he violated ethics rules would likely be steep and the potential punishments relatively minor.

Lawyers who focus on attorney ethics say anyone wanting to pursue an ethics complaint against Napolitano would have to prove the former judge lied on purpose and would have to overcome his First Amendment free speech protections.

Napolitano quit the bench in 1995 after a dispute with the New Jersey Supreme Court over his right to earn outside income, but is still licensed to practice in New Jersey and New York.

Fox News, according to media reports, removed Napolitano on March 16, after he claimed, citing unnamed sources, that the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters, at Obama’s request, bugged Trump’s communications.

Napolitano’s allegations were cited by the Trump administration as evidence that Obama was behind a wiretapping scheme. In a rare public statement, GCHQ flatly denied Napolitano’s claim, stating: “Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wiretapping’ against the then President Elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

Fox News later issued a statement saying it could not confirm Napolitano’s assertions, and took him off the air.

To explain how Napolitano could face trouble, attorney ethics mavens on both sides of the Hudson River cited Rule 8.4(c) of the New York and New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, both of which state that lawyers and firms “shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”******

OTHERWISE: Did Samuel Alito violate the Code of Judicial Conduct? /Steven Lubet //Slate

Source: OTHERWISE: Did Samuel Alito violate the Code of Judicial Conduct? /Steve Lubet //Slate

 

When he was invited to speak at the conservative Claremont Institute’s annual fundraising dinner Justice Samuel Alito properly insisted that the ticket price could not exceed the cost of the meal.  But the Institute offered on its event web page another opportunity to donate: at the $10,000 level. Prof. Lubet asks if Justice Alito violated the Code of Judicial Conduct – which guides Supreme Court Justices only to the degree that the Justice deems appropriate. – gwc

Did Samuel Alito violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?

by Prof. Steven Lubet (Northwestern University Law School)

***There has been considerable pressure on the Supreme Court to adopt its own code of conduct. Legislation to that effect has been repeatedly introduced in Congress, which would, in the words of one sponsor, require the court to announce “clear, written rules that establish standards by which justices’ behavior can be guided and assessed by both themselves and the American people.”

But no code—whether used only for guidance or accepted as binding—can substitute for a justice’s own vigilance. It is impossible to know how many $10,000 donors joined the Claremont Institute’s “Host Committee” for the purpose of honoring Justice Alito, but even one would be too many. The prohibition on fundraising is long-standing principle of judicial ethics, and it is important that it be respected in both word and deed.

Prawfsblawg Symposium on Law’s New Frontiers

Prawfsblawg recently hosted Law’s New Frontiers, a symposium focused on the books by Richard & Daniel Susskind, The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts and Gillian K. Hadfield, Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy. The bottom line? Both books are must-reads for those interested in the future of the legal profession. Here are links to the contributions:

Dan Rodriguez, Law’s New Frontiers: an on-line symposium

Phil Weiser, What Susskind can teach law school educators

Andy Perlman, Predicting the future of legal services

Phil Weiser, Hadfield’s anti-institutional innovation agenda and the administrative state

Renee Knake, What is missing from Hadfield’s Rules for a Flat World and the Susskinds’ The Future of the Professions?

Daniel Sokol, The future of law, innovation and disruptive technologies

Andy Perlman, Legal education in the 21st century

Jeff Lipshaw, A response to the Susskinds mostly and Hadfield

Bill Henderson, Losing the scholarly prose

Javier de Cendra, Some reflections on technology, law and legal systems following “The Future of the Professions” and “Rules for a Flat World”

Andy Perlman, Towards the law of legal services: reflections on Gillian Hadfield’s “Rules for a Flat World”

Stephen Denyer, Rules for a Flat World: the UK experience

Cross-posted at the Legal Ethics Forum

Extrajudicial Prosecutorial displays of contraband barred – NJ Ethics Committee

Source: Extrajudicial Prosecutorial displays of contraband barred – NJ Ethics Committee

Extrajudicial Statements Featuring Displays of Seized Contraband Are Prohibited by Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 and 3.8 according to the recently issued  Opinion 731 of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics.

The Committee rejected a prosecution request to relax New Jersey’s long-standing stricture on prosecutorial display of contraband.  The ACPE adhered to the plain language of RPC 3.6 (Trial Publicity):

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.

The Inquiring prosecutor argued that the display of seized drugs and paraphernalia would be an educational deterrent to drug abuse – particularly in light of the opioid use crisis which is a current focus of the administration of Governor Chris Christie.  The Governor has appeared in a series of television advertisements urging users to seek treatment.

The Inquirer found support in RPC 3.6 (d) which provides:

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

The ACPE rejected the Inquirer’s argument.  It relied on RPC 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor) which provides, in part:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under RPC 3.6 or this Rule.

According to an article in the New Jersey Law Journal the Inquirer’s request found little support – even among prosecutors.  The Supreme Court Committee’s rulings are binding on the entire bar subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court itself.  It is expected that the Inquirer will seek such review.