All in Attorney Discipline

A Belated Update So I Don’t Trigger 8.4(c) By Saying I Blog “Regularly”

The problem with telling the whole world that you blog regularly about legal ethics is that you have to actually do it. And when you’ve got an elections practice in an election month, and you teach dentists, and then you take a spring break trip, and then your kid takes up soccer, and then you end up with a nasty cold, and also you have your actual work, “regularly” becomes aspirational, rather than actual.

So, I am bringing an update of a case I first wrote about in July. The update itself is tardy. So it goes.

There is Padding And Then There Is Whatever this Is

Above The Law has reported the case of a now-former Dentons associate in Illinois, who was assigned a document review project. In pop culture, document review has been portrayed as punitive, or potentially simple enough for a high school student to handle (sadly I could not find the clip from “Clueless” where Cher had to highlight telephone conversations occurring on September 3).

About Those Winds Again...

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 While I have seen courts reconsider or clarify opinions (and they can do so sua sponte) I’ve never seen one withdrawn and removed from the website.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

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.

Responding to Internet Criticism, Re-Re-Revisited

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.

"This Blog Isn't About Politics," and Other Lies We Tell

When I launched this site back in October I intended it to be a site for discussion of legal ethics. I mean, it’s right there in the title (sort of; perhaps I should add getting “ethicking” added to the dictionary to my bucket list). Disciplinary decisions, new rules, general nerdery. Some current events but “it’s not about politics, and it’s not going to be about politics,” or so I told my employer when making the pitch.