Professional Responsibility
Week of 6-23-08
Week 4
- Exam is not yet scheduled. Probably 8/22AM.
- Handout 1: failure to comply with advertisement rules.
- Advertising rules: 7.4 is very specific. What you can tell
the public.
- Handout 2: an actual specialist. Certified drunk driving
defense specialist.
- Note that some of these rules will change by the time we
graduate, so know what areas are potential violations,
and where to look for them.
- 7.5 : firm names and letterheads can't be misleading.
- 8.2 : can't slander officers of the court or candidates thereto
- Multijurisdictional practice: you practice where you are
admitted, and not in other states. Pro hac vice is
the exception to this, of course. Usually requires you
to hook up with someone in the local jurisdiction; this
is a procedural requirement, and it is generally a
boondoggle for the local attorney. See ABA 5.5(c)(1);
the other subparagraphs have not necessarily been
adopted in Wisconsin.
- Handout 3: article noting a state bar petition to bring
WI's multijurisdictional requirements in line with
the ABA (i.e., broadening the rules for who can
appear in WI).
- Note that multijurisdictional regulation is in part a
protectionist business strategy by the state bar;
you can practice in an area of law that's new to you
(subject to the requirement that you prepare yoursel),
but not a jurisdiction. That's a criminal offense.
- 8.5: Which jurisdiction controls. You can be disciplined
in two jurisdictions.
- Advertising on the Internet: there's the basic ABA rule
about advertising. It is nearly impossible to comply
with all states' advertising rules on the Internet.
But the Internet is also the first place people look
for lawyers.
- Multidisciplinary practice. Lawyers working in conjunction
with other profession: you can't. You can practice in
cahoots with yourself, if you have two credentials,
but not others. Rule 5.4: the fee-sharing rule. A
lawyer is supposed to give independant legal judgment.
- Pro bono work. The various ways it gets done. In WI,
possibly judges don't appoint attorneys because we
have a state PD. But 6.2 says if you are appointed,
you can only weasel out of it for "good cause."
- Handout 4: revocation of license after overbilling the
public defender.
- How do great criminals get such good lawyers? Maybe
pro bono (with expectation of publicity). Sometimes
maybe there are defense funds that are set up.
Write to Professor Smith re this.
- History of Legal Services Corp. Formed in 1964 in
Office of Economic Opportunity (part of Johnson's
"war on poverty"). It quickly became a lobbying
group because litigating single cases was less
effective than trying to change the rules. And
it got to be a very effective advocate for legal
reform.
- Handout 5: legal services in WI. The states do still
get some funding, and this is how it gets used in
WI.
- Rule 6.3: the exhortation to paricipate in legal services
close-to-pro-bono stuff. A lawyer may serve as an
officer in these organizations, even if the organization
serves clients with interests adverse to the lawyer's
main work. Of course, you can't go too far with this:
no material adverse effects.
- 6.4: Law reform activities. A lawyer may serve as the
director, etc., of a law reform organization. 6.5:
a lawyer who provides short-term limited legal services
to a client for nonprofit isn't encumbered by the full
burden of ongoing lawyer-client relationships.
- 6.1: you have the responsibility to provide services to
those who can't pay; you should contribute 50 hours,
but you're not required to do any.
- Handout 6: Wisbar text on pro bono work.
- Note that there is no rule specifying how or when the
lawyer-client relationship is established. It's
implied that it gets established, but nothing is
explicit. 90% of the time, there's a signed
agreement, much of the time there's a statement
about money.
- You don't have to accept a client; you don't have to
explain why you are turning down a client.
- Remember Togstad: sometimes a lawyer-client
relationship can sneak up on you. Also, note that
you can't have, e.g., a divorce practice that only
accepts women clients. Back with Togstad,
though, the lawyer thought he had turned the case
down. The court seems to have been looking for
someone to pay her, and he was the only one left.
- The chat-room problem (4-1) is another example. There's
not much case law (there's an ethics opinion by the
DC bar) about the Internet. That opinion distinguishes
between legal information (OK) and legal advice (not
OK).
- Agency. What is it? When you become an attorney, you
are the agent of the client (the principal). If the
agent has apparent or actual authority, the client
can be bound by the lawyer's actions. Implied and
apparent authority are somewhat tricky. Apparent is
the effect on the other party.
- Implied authority: in order to file a complaint, you'll
have to state some facts that would otherwise be
confidential.
- If a party with whom you're negotiating acts on the
belief that you have authority for something, you
and your client may be bound by it. Apparent
authority will probably not be on the exam.
- Scope of representation: 1.2. Hard to know how far you
can go in discussing the consequences of something
(i.e., telling people it's not likely they'll get
caught, or the penalty is not severe).
- Client is the boss about the objectives. Also, whether
to settle, what plea to enter, whether to waive jury
trial, and whether the client will testify. Comment
2 (to 1.2) shows some areas where it's not 100% clear
who is in charge-- sometimes it's not clear what is
an objective and what is a means. Is a lawsuit an
objective, or a means? Note that WI is insurer-
friendly about scope of representation.
- 1.18: duties to a prospective client. People, for
example, "conflicting out" specific lawyers by
telling them some stuff before they are approached
by the other side for representation.
- The purpose of 1.18 is to facilitate open an honest
communications between clients and lawyers.
- p. 218: the ten lawyering skills.
- The washing-machine problem: has the client been
harrassed? was the deal unconscionable? Can
the price just be negotiated?