Roses are Red, Rainclouds are Gray, What You Want With Your Client Breaks 1.8(j)

Roses are Red, Rainclouds are Gray, What You Want With Your Client Breaks 1.8(j)

Stacie Rosenzweig
Rules, Best Practices

Model Rule 1.8(j) (Wisconsin counterpart here) is the one rule (other than, perhaps, don’t steal from your clients) that non-lawyers seem to know. Not that this has ever been polled, but if I had to guess, it’s the rule that attorneys other than professional responsibility lawyers can cite most often without looking up. Law students try to stump their professors with increasingly fanciful scenarios. Of course this Rule seems more interesting to most observers than imputed conflicts and multijurisdictional practice.

Wherein the Author Tries To Explain 3.1 Using Bad Math Analogies

Wherein the Author Tries To Explain 3.1 Using Bad Math Analogies

Stacie Rosenzweig
Rules

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?

So, Wait, *I* Can Be Subpoenaed?

So, Wait, *I* Can Be Subpoenaed?

Stacie Rosenzweig
Current Events, FAQ

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.

On That Imagined Spousal Exception to 1.6

On That Imagined Spousal Exception to 1.6

Stacie Rosenzweig
Best Practices

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.

Crackin' the Kraken!

Crackin' the Kraken!

Stacie Rosenzweig
Current Events, My Nerd Friends, Lawyers Behaving Badly

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.

Pardon the Light Blogging

Pardon the Light Blogging

Stacie Rosenzweig
APRL, Personal

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.

Crowdfund the Kraken!

Crowdfund the Kraken!

Stacie Rosenzweig
Current Events, Rules, Best Practices

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.

Responding to Internet Criticism, Re-Re-Revisited

Responding to Internet Criticism, Re-Re-Revisited

Stacie Rosenzweig
National, Attorney Discipline

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.

Load More