Ethics and Professional Responsibility - Annual Survey 2013 - PDF e-Book Chapter Out of Stock
Electronic PDF e-Book Chapter
Quantity
Publisher
ABOUT THE CHAPTER:
The reigning legal ethics controversy in 2013 was whether and how lawyers may provide legal services to clients in the newly decriminalized (at the state level) marijuana industry without violating Colo. RPC 1.2(d) by helping them break federal criminal laws on the subject, which have not changed. The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee issued a formal opinion acknowledging that lawyers may not be able to provide clients in this industry with a full range of legal services without violating Rule 1.2(d).
In an addendum issued the same day as the opinion, the Committee endorsed proposed rule changes that would, if approved by the Colorado Supreme Court, insulate lawyers from disciplinary prosecution for providing clients with legal services and advice on “marijuana-related conduct.” They would also insulate lawyers from disciplinary prosecution for personal marijuana consumption, notwithstanding the prohibition in Colo. RPC 8.4(b) against engaging in criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
Beyond marijuana, opinions issued by disciplinary hearing boards gave insight into how far a lawyer may go in giving a client the benefit of the doubt when making factual assertions; whether and, if so, how much a lawyer may pay herself for the reasonable value of her services if she does not complete the scope of work she agreed to perform; and what a lawyer may and may not do when her law license has been suspended.
A Colorado Court of Appeals case addressed whether a lawyer must disclose to a client certain personal information about a lawyer working on the client's case. Another panel of the same court determined the consequences of a client's payment of a witness on a contingent fee basis, with the apparent knowledge and consent of the client's lawyer.
A Colorado Supreme Court case analyzed whether and when a lawyer who was informally consulted by another lawyer on a case should be disqualified from later representing the consulting lawyer's opposing party. In another attorney disqualification case, the court considered whether the disqualification of the head of a public defender's office should result in the disqualification of all lawyers in that office against the wishes of the client to keep those lawyers. The court also decided whether a U.S. passport could be the subject of an attorney's retaining lien for nonpayment of fees, and when issue preclusion will bar the prosecution of a lawyer in an attorney discipline case based on a prior prosecution of the same lawyer for similar alleged misconduct.
Finally, opinions issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado considered whether Colorado or federal ethics rules were applicable to a motion for disqualification of counsel filed in that court, and whether Colorado or District of Columbia law applied to a D.C. lawyer's pre-litigation conduct that would have been unethical under Colorado ethics rules but not under D.C. ethics rules. Another opinion addressed whether a secretary was the type of organizational constituent with whom opposing counsel was prohibited from having direct communication about a matter in which the organization was represented by counsel.
CASES
FTC v. Dalbey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-15
Helmer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. . . . . . . ETH-14
In re Attorney G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-12
In re Greene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-13
Just in Case Business Lighthouse,
LLC v. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-9
Liebnow by and through Liebnow v.
Boston Enterprises, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-10
Moye White LLP v. Beren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-8
People v. Gilbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-4
People v. McNamara, III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-6
People v. Nozolino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-12
People v. Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETH-2
Roe v. Karval School District RE23 . . . . . . . . . ETH-16
- CLE Pass Price *FREE! - exclusions may apply
- Standard Price $8.95 USD
- Member Price $4.95 USD
- General Credits
- Ethics Credits
- EDI Credits