All in Quick Hits
I get this question a lot, and for good reason. On one hand: Every bit of information related to representation is presumptively confidential per Rule 1.6 and its state equivalents. (Different states interpret the rule differently; Wisconsin takes a particularly restrictive view.) On the other hand, if you need to move a court to withdraw, they usually want a reason (see Rule 1.16), and most of those reasons are going to contain, well, information related to representation.
Greetings, folks, and I know, I know, I have been absent long enough that readers may wonder if “she blogs frequently at ethicking.com” (which is in various forms of my biography) is an 8.4(c) issue. (If I had readers who noticed, anyway.) As before, actual work plus the state of affairs has made blogging a bit spotty.
We learned this afternoon that several Democratic members of the US Senate filed a Request for Disciplinary Investigation with the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin.
Taking a break from everything being on fire to report this quick hit (h/t several people on BlueSky): every judge interprets the Daubert standard (or whatever standard applies in their state) a little different, but I assure you that a qualification for anyone to testify as an expert witness on any subject is that they must be alive.
If any of you are in need of 2.5-3 on-demand ethics CLE hours (depending on how your state counts time), or are curious about what happens when people who are not me* try to make ethics CLE fun, Cleveland-based Squire Patton Boggs has created a free long-form ethics CLE musical. (Hey, I run a legal ethics snark blog, I’m not judging.)
I’m working on some longer pieces and on my actual job, so for now, a few quick hits.
So the thing about having an elections practice in a swing state is that one day you’re writing about bad news that can’t wait and the next day it’s November and everything has waited. I’m still not quite up for air, but I am getting there.
At risk of this blog turning into a Wisconsin Lawyer repository (as original-to-the-bog content has been…well, mostly missing), I present for your consideration “Ethics Song ‘89,” my latest contribution to the State Bar journal.
My latest column, “The Story of Stuff,” is out in the latest Wisconsin Lawyer magazine.
It’s a little less snarky than usual, but I still got to reference George Carlin, mainframe punch cards, and the entropy-in-action that is my desk.
Hi, folks,
It’s been awhile, hasn’t it?
Sorry to say, it’s going to be awhile yet, as things are busy here.
In the meantime, my January column for the Wisconsin Lawyer is out; this time, I discuss all those little conflicts life deals.
A quick update on New York’s Second AI Hallucination case, which I originally covered a couple of weeks ago—today we learned that Michael Cohen, the client, and not David Schwartz, the lawyer, used artificial intelligence (this time, Google Bard) to generate cases that did not exist. In a declaration he submitted to the court (available starting on page 9 of this packet from the CourtListener docket), Cohen stated that (having been disbarred several years ago) he had not kept up with legal technology trends and did not understand the limitations of AI.
Another day, another misuse of ChatGPT. A Colorado attorney was fired from his job after using, and suspended last month for one year and one day (with all but 90 days stayed, subject to probation) because he used, ChatGPT to prepare a motion. As with other lawyers who’ve gotten into trouble for misusing AI, Zachariah Crabill filed the motion without verifying that case citations were accurate. Lo and behold, they were not.
Today is October 24, which means this blog is celebrating its fourth birthday. It should be able to walk downstairs, know the difference between reality and fantasy, and ask a lot of questions.
It’s not surprising that we’ve gossiped that Johnny Depp’s lawyer, Camille Vasquez may (emphasis in original) have directed, permitted, or otherwise appreciated a female member of the legal team going into the women’s bathroom at the courthouse and spraying Depp’s cologne into the stalls so that the opposing party, his ex Amber Heard, would smell it. This was described as “psychological warfare” (against some who accused Depp of abuse).
Check out my debut as an ethics columnist in the Wisconsin Lawyer. I’ll be writing in every other issue, and the editor is letting me snark there too. I’m just not allowed to write about politics, though I was able to sneak in a Kanye 2020 reference.
It’s early August, which means I am at the APRL Annual Meeting hanging with my nerd friends and learning about collateral estoppel, generative AI, and interstate practice, and other important topics in legal ethics and disciplinary defense.
A committee of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended disbarment for America’s Mayor/Trump sycophant Rudy Giuliani.
At least part of the 2020 election is coming to a close, as Lin Wood, once highly regarded for defending Richard Jewell, but now reduced to Kraken (or perhaps Kraken-adjacent) fame, is retiring his law license. He has been mired in disciplinary and sanctions proceedings for many months, and it appears to be coming to an unceremonious end.
The March 2023 issue of Wisconsin Lawyer is live (print copies should arrive shortly), so please check out my short article, “When A Professional Needs A Professional.”
