This post is about what happens when your client asks you to get to “X” despite all available authority telling you “X” is not possible (which I speculate may have happened in the above transaction). “We need to enforce this poorly drafted restrictive covenant.” “I want maintenance from my spouse despite only being married for 9 months and voluntarily waiving it.” “I don’t care what the law says, just fix it.”
Can you get to X?
Today’s breaking news is not that. We learned that the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol issued subpoenas for Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and Boris Epshteyn. All four are attorneys who were involved in some way in the January 6 insurrection or the litigation seeking to overturn the election results.
While predictions as to how that will play out are beyond the scope of this blog, I do occasionally get asked whether attorneys can be subpoenaed to testify about, or produce documents related to representation of, former or current clients.
If I had to hazard a guess (and I am far from the first person to make a similar guess), Rule 1.6 (governing confidentiality) has the highest violations-to-prosecutions ratio of all of the Rules (or, at least, perhaps second after everyone violates 8.4(c) when they talk about the Tooth Fairy with their kids or how often they floss with their dentist). Why? Because it’s natural to want to debrief your day with your spouse or significant other and it’s hard to avoid discussing specifics.
By now, most of us are veterans at remote work (right)? In her State of the Judiciary address earlier this month, Wisconsin’s Chief Justice Annette Ziegler pointed out that some of the COVID-19 adaptations, including videoconferencing, were here to stay in at least some form.
We’ve all probably hit “reply all” when “reply” was the better call.
But what happens when “all” includes the represented, opposing party?
First, this is a pro-vaccine blog. If you are able to get the vaccine, get the vaccine. I understand you may be worried about side effects; talk to your doctor about that.
Aside from that, though, do lawyers have an obligation under the Rules of Professional Responsibility to get the vaccine if they are able?
The job market is hot, your student loan balance is, well, eek, and you’ve been asked to do some legal work on the side—maybe it’s document review for a contract firm, or overflow for a solo practitioner friend.
Can you ethically do this?
Tread carefully, if at all.
Yes, I am running out of puns, and this is information isn’t breaking news anymore, but 110-page opinions have bad habits of dropping while I’m on vacation.
Anyway, while I was gone, Hon. Linda Parker of the Eastern District of Michigan sanctioned several attorneys, including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and a few less famous, but all associated with the post-election “Kraken” litigation. My nerd friend Don Campbell did his best with exceedingly bad facts, but.
This is a remarkable opinion. It is also 110 pages, so it’s not a beach read (well, maybe it is, I won’t judge), but if this interests you at all you should read it.
A quick reminder from our friends at the State Bar of Wisconsin: it is pretty much always scamming season and attorneys are not at all immune. The Inside Track newsletter this week offers some practical tips for recognizing and avoiding trust account scams.
Greetings to all of you new people who visited me through the Legal Talk Today podcast (give it a listen here) or through my interview with the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Inside Track (watch here). And, sorry all of that new content that Inside Track seemed to suggest happened on a regular basis did not actually happen.
Over the weekend, mythical sea creature /(probably) soon-to-be-sanctioned lawyer Sidney Powell announced that she was joining a legal team to aid who she termed “political prisoners” (people who are accused of participating in the January 6 insurrection and are now in jail).
While, okay, everyone deserves a defense, what caught my eye was that this announcement was, of course, attached to a request for donations to Powell’s 501(c)(4). It is not clear whether donations would actually go to some sort of legal defense fund, some other project of the organization, or anywhere else.
This blog isn’t about politics so I’m not going to dive down that rabbit hole (except to remind Ms. Powell that 8.4(c) is a 24/7 law and misleading donors can get her sanctioned just as readily as misleading clients). So instead I’ll talk about crowdfunding legal fees.
More and more, clients (and employers) are expecting their lawyers to be available on weekends and holidays. (We can probably thank smart phones for that.) But does that expectation translate into an duty?
Like most ethics lawyers, I get questions about how to respond to online criticism fairly often. Of course, lawyers have always endured criticism, but until relatively recently, the comments were made around water coolers and on the courthouse steps, and maybe in a grievance filing. Newspaper editors generally didn’t publish letters about attorneys who weren’t otherwise public figures. Now, however, everyone has a platform and anyone can post a scathing review about anyone for any reason.
I recently recorded a podcast for Legal Talk Today, and discussed Rudy Giuliani’s future and the limits of zealous advocacy. (Loyal readers will recognize some of this.)
Well, well, well. It seems that the attorney for the former president, landscaping company press conference aficionado, and frequent target of ridicule Rudy Giuliani needs to take an indefinite time out in New York, as his license to practice law there has been suspended on an interim basis pending investigation.
Mike Lindell may have once been known only as the “MyPillow" Guy,” but recently he’s traded polyurethane foam for horsefeathers.
I’m writing this at 4:30 pm the Friday before Memorial Day. Throughout the day, I’ve received multiple communications, from multiple agencies and entities, telling me bad things about my clients.
I learned quickly that there is a difference between actually redacting something and just plunking a black box over something you don’t want other people to see. The problem is, not everyone has learned that lesson.
You’re relatively new to law practice. (Congratulations on your graduation and new job in a pandemic, by the way.) You studied the rules and maybe passed the MPRE. But you’re still learning and your on-the-job training has been, well…the partners are really busy.
Long story short, you messed up. In retrospect, that’s clear. Your client complained to the OLR and now you have to answer an inquiry.
Is your newbie-ness and perhaps not-great advice from your supervisor a defense to grievance?
