What the heck...I mean you all saw that, right?

What the heck...I mean you all saw that, right?

Stacie Rosenzweig
Current Events, Lawyers Behaving Badly

I’ve been deep in trial prep the last few days (and ahead of seeing my nerd friends at the Chicago conference, but that doesn’t mean my phone hasn’t been utterly lit up, as happens whenever a lawyer does something dumb on television. From my office, with headphones on, I could hear the collective gasps of my friends as they watched Alex Jones and his lawyer Andino Reynal have a meltdown in real time yesterday.

What happened yesterday (some video here) was, alternately (and with apologies to random social media people who made these comments but I can’t find to credit), an EPR class issue-spotting nightmare, an object lesson in FAFO, and/or a Nerd Conference Eve Present for those of us in the ethics bar.

21st Century Trust Account Rules? Petition Seeks To Simplify

21st Century Trust Account Rules? Petition Seeks To Simplify

Stacie Rosenzweig
Supreme Court of WI, Wisconsin, Rules

Recently, a viral Twitter conversation asked participants born before 1990 about their first online purchase. I’m really not sure—was it a book from the early days of Amazon? Some long-forgotten kitchen gadget? I know I was long out of college, but this was still when “e-commerce” was something distinct from just buying stuff. Even though it quickly became apparent that online shopping was secure, quick, and soon to be inevitable, it took awhile for people’s habits and risk tolerance to catch up with the technology.

State lawyer regulatory authorities are similar—at any given time, the Rules of Professional Conduct reflect the state of the world from years ago. (Don’t believe me? Take a look at the advertising rules and tell me they reflect how people do business in 2022.) It takes time for the rules to catch up.

A Stark Reminder About Confidentiality

A Stark Reminder About Confidentiality

Stacie Rosenzweig
Current Events, National

Earlier this week, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced charges in four separate insider trading cases involving nine targets.

Relevant here is the case against Seth Markin (pdf), who is accused of looking through his then-girlfriend’s confidential work documents. The girlfriend, who is not named in the indictment, was an associate at a Washington DC law firm. The couple did not live together, but Markin spent significant time at her one-bedroom apartment, sometimes alone.

About Those Winds Again...

About Those Winds Again...

Stacie Rosenzweig
Attorney Discipline, Wisconsin, Quick Hits

Late last week, I wrote about the case of Nathan DeLadurantey, who received a public reprimand for offensive personality involving harassment of a subordinate lawyer.

A reader alerted me to the fact that the decision (which I linked to) appeared to be gone from the Supreme Court Website, and, in fact it is. I checked the court website and learned that as of July 2, the Court withdrew the opinion and will issue a revised one “in due course.” While I have seen courts reconsider or clarify opinions (and they can do so sua sponte) I’ve never seen one withdrawn and removed from the website.

The Wisconsin Disciplinary Winds May Be Shifting

The Wisconsin Disciplinary Winds May Be Shifting

Stacie Rosenzweig
Attorney Discipline, Wisconsin

t’s been a busy few weeks for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin—like its federal counterpart, it releases a flurry of opinions before it quiets down for the summer (though unlike its federal counterpart, the Wisconsin Court does not have “Terms”). Although I do have an elections and political law practice, and there were a few opinions on which I have Thoughts, this blog isn’t about that, so I won’t be talking about those kinds of opinions unless there is a professional responsibility overlap.

Today, though, an interesting disciplinary opinion came out.* I am recounting it here not for its subject matter, which is a bit salacious and therefore will likely be the focus of other coverage, but for the overall direction of the process and the opinion.

Wherein The Cobbler's Children Actually Have Shoes For Once

Wherein The Cobbler's Children Actually Have Shoes For Once

Stacie Rosenzweig
Personal, My weird brain, Best Practices

I was in California this week for a family funeral, and I was prepared to write this blog entry about all of the grace and understanding colleagues and adversaries have shown. Extensions, offers to cover, and forgiveness for delays were free-flowing. And that’s true, and maybe I will write about that at some point, because this profession is a whole lot less horrible when we can acknowledge each other’s humanity.

No, today I’ll write about that time (today) someone walked off with my laptop at LAX and it did not break my ethics brain.

Play Invasion of Privacy Games, "Win" Invasion of Privacy Lawsuits

Play Invasion of Privacy Games, "Win" Invasion of Privacy Lawsuits

Stacie Rosenzweig
Quick Hits, National

Bloomberg Law is reporting that Vrdolyak Law Group, based in Illinois, has been sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for secretly recording employee phone calls and and meetings without permission, and then concealing their efforts.

Now, Illinois has some pretty stringent eavesdropping laws and is a two-party consent state, which means that absent particular circumstances, all parties to a conversation need to consent to recording it. So the particular course of action may not be available to aggrieved employees in other states, but hearing about this suit got me wondering—is it ethical to surveil your employees in such fashion?

So, What Do We All Think About the 65 Project?

So, What Do We All Think About the 65 Project?

Stacie Rosenzweig
National, Current Events

This week, we learned about a new group, the 65 Project, dedicated to seeking professional discipline for lawyers involved in President Trump’s post-election litigation. Already, complaints have been filed with several states’ regulators. The “65” refers to the number of post-election lawsuits that were filed, that, in the group’s words, were “based on lies to overturn the election and give Trump a second term.”

“So, Great Party Here, Mind If I Ask You A Few Questions About Admiralty Law?”

“So, Great Party Here, Mind If I Ask You A Few Questions About Admiralty Law?”

Stacie Rosenzweig
FAQ

Remember getting accosted at cocktail parties and bar mitzvahs? Your cousin’s date found out you’re a lawyer and has a question or twelve for you about their esoteric legal issue. Before you can get a word in, you’ve learned that the date lives in Oregon, the problem arose in Florida, and involves various distinctions between importing live poultry and importing poultry that has been processed for retail grocery sale.

Or, more commonly these days, you fire up your social media and find that a friend, a friend-of-a-friend, or a stranger has tagged you and wants you to weigh in on a legal question. (I call this the “Facebook subpoena” even though generally it has the force of “oh come on now what?” more than anything.)

Of course, you have no obligation to answer any of these questions. But can you? Should you?

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.

Load More