OTHERWISE: SCOTUS Should Adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct// Lubet// Legal Ethics forum

Source: OTHERWISE: SCOTUS Should Adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct// Lubet// Legal Ethics forum

by Steve Lubet (Northwestern Law School)

I have an oped on CNN.com explaining why SCOTUS should adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct.  Here is the gist:
While Supreme Court justices obviously face the same quandaries and dilemmas as all other judges, they alone have no set rules for resolving, or even addressing, ethics issues.
 
Members of Congress have repeatedly called on the justices to adopt an ethics code. Most recently, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2017, which would give the court six months to “promulgate a code of ethics” based on the Code of Conduct for US Judges already in effect for the lower federal courts, along with any modifications that “the Supreme Court deems appropriate.”
 
[T]he objective of a code would be to set discernible standards for the justices’ conduct so that the public could know the norms to which the justices are holding themselves.
 
You can read the whole thing here.

OTHERWISE: Required to Report a Client’s Drug Addiction? Illinois Says Not Necessarily… | Legal Ethics in Motion

Source: OTHERWISE: Required to Report a Client’s Drug Addiction? Illinois Says Not Necessarily… | Legal Ethics in Motion

This fascinating Illinois State Bar Ethics Opinion 17-01 (click through for link) presents this question under the state’s RPC 1.6(c)which mandates disclosure “to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent death or substantial bodily harm”. :

The inquiring attorney has a client who is addicted to heroin and opioids, and also takes cocaine, marijuana and methadone. The client is arrested for possession of a controlled substance, and appears severely impaired during court hearings, but remains silent before the Judge, allowing the attorney to do the speaking. The client is unable to stop consuming heroin and continues to be in violation of bond conditions.

In essence the bar committee finds insufficient immediacy of harm but suggests that in appropriate circumstances  RPC 1.14  Diminished Capacity may allow the lawyer the ability to take protective steps.

– GWC

AALS Section on Professional Responsibility Call for Papers – 2018 AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS Section on Professional Responsibility invites papers for its program “Professional Responsibility 2018 Works in Progress Workshop” at the AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego. Two papers will be selected from those submitted.

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION:

This workshop will be an opportunity to test ideas, work out issues in drafts and interrogate a paper prior to submission. It will pair each work in progress scholar with a more senior scholar in the field who will lead a discussion of the piece and provide feedback. Successful papers should engage with scholarly literature and make a meaningful original contribution to the field or professional responsibility or legal ethics.

ELIGIBILITY:

Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Preference will be given to junior scholars focusing their work in the area of professional responsibility and legal ethics. Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:

Two papers will be selected by the Section’s Executive Committee for presentation at the AALS annual meeting.

There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of proposals. However, the presenter is expected to have a draft for commentators one month prior to the beginning of the AALS conference.

The paper MUST be a work in progress and cannot be published at the time of presentation. It may, however have been accepted for publication and be forthcoming.

DEADLINE:

Please email submissions to Ben Edwards, Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law, at ben.edwards.unlv@gmail.com on or before September 30, 2017. The title of the email submission should read: “Submission – 2018 AALS Section on Professional Responsibility.”

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.”******