Professional Responsibility Flashcards
Conflict of Interest Language
A lawyer must not represent a client when there is significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s personal interests. Can do if
The lawyer reasonably believes that he can competently represent each affected client
The representation is not prohibited by law
Does not involve asserting a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same proceeding
Each impacted client gives written consent (in writing) and in California the disclosure has to be in writing too
California
If you have a personal relationship with a party or witness the lawyer has to provide written disclosure even if there is no risk that this will limit the lawyers ability to do their job
General Stuff
General prohibition of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty or fraud, so can mention this
Actions that Harm the Justice System
Can’t engage in actions that harm the justice system like assisting a judge in violating the rules of professional conduct and implying you can improperly influence a judge
Discrimination
ABA-lawyers can’t discriminate based on a protected characteristic
California-can’t engage in unlawful discrimination
Can’t permit unlawful discrimination
If you are both subject to investigation and being sued you have to tell the bar association
Duties to Clients
Confidentiality
Loyalty
Financial
Competence
Duties to the Court
Candor
Fairness
Dignity
Mandatory Rejection or Withdrawal
Representation will lead to a violation of the rules of professional conduct
Lawyer’s physical or mental well being substantially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client
Lawyer is discharged by the client
California-also requires you to withdraw if the litigation is only for the purpose of harassment or maliciously injuring another person
Permissive Withdrawal
If they can do it without substantially hurting the client or
California says that you can do it if the client agrees except if the court says no (like it’s close to trial)
Good cause
Client is involved in criminal course of action using lawyer’s services
Has used lawyer to perpetrate a crime or fraud
Fails to fulfill obligation to lawyer (namely getting paid) but the lawyer has to give the client reasonable warning
Client is being unreasonably difficult
Repugnant action
Unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer
Pot
California-says you have to tell a client when California law conflicts with federal law or tribal law
Outside Reporting/Protecting Interest of Corporation
When you’re protecting a corp from itself, you can run it up the flagpole and if no one does anything about it then you go to an outside authority to the extent it will prevent substantial injury
California-doesn’t allow you to report outside cause they love confidentiality, just lets you withdraw
Competence
You can learn or consult with another lawyer who is competent or if you’re not competent you can step in in an emergency
California-also says that you have to be emotionally and mentally able to do the work
Diligence
Have to act with reasonable diligence regarding a client’s interest
California-only actionable if it’s repeatedly or intentionally or with gross negligence
Communication
You need to communicate with your client—tell them of significant developments etc and promptly comply with requests for information from the court
You can delay transmitting info but you have to do it eventually
California-have to tell them if you don’t have liability insurance and if you lose it you have to tell the client
Always have to tell them immediately of proposed plea bargain and settlement offers (but if it’s a settlement offer they’ve already said if it would work or not then it’s not a significant development)
Can only delay if if they think the client would be likely to act in a way that would cause them imminent harm
Remember whenever it’s in writing the lawyer’s disclosure has to be writing too
Confidentiality
Lawyer must not disclose any information relating to the representation of the client
Can’t use information that is not generally known to the clients disadvantage
And have to make sure that other people can’t access the information
There is implied authority to disclose or they can give you express authority
Exceptions to Confidentiality
Prevent death or imminent substantial bodily harm
California-the harm has to be the result of a criminal act and the lawyer has to make a good faith effort to dissuade them from doing it and inform the client that they’re going to reveal the info
Prevent or rectify substantial financial loss
There is a crime or fraud that is going to result in great financial losses and the lawyer’s services were used in furtherance of
California-doesn’t exist in CA we don’t believe in this we believe in confidentiality
Also regarding malpractice stuff
Ethics advice isn’t officially recognized in CA but it does happen and it’s chill
Direct Adversity Conflicts
Client will be directly adverse to another client who is represented by the lawyer or
There is a significant risk that the lawyer will be materially limited by the lawyers own interests or responsibilities
Like when they owe a duty to some third person
Close family relationships with opposing counsel
Financial interest in the matter
California makes you disclose relationships even if there isn’t significant risk, even things like being in a relationship with the client of the opposing party’s lawyer
They can still do it if
They reasonably believe that they can competently and diligently represent the client (reasonable lawyer standard)
The representation is not prohibited by law
Basically you can’t be on both sides of the litigation and that’s never consentable
Effected client gets informed consent, confirmed in writing
Examples of direct adversity
Multiple clients in the same matter whose interests are in actual conflict
Could involve a cross-examination of an existing client
Mere economic adversity isn’t enough—they can be economically adverse just not actually adverse
California-when you represent the insured the insurance company is also your client for conflicts except if it’s just to indemnify
Business Transactions with Client
First Discuss Over Coffee-fairness, disclosure, outside lawyer, consent
You can’t enter into a business relationship with a client unless
The terms are fair to the client
The terms and everything are fully disclosed in writing
The client is advised in writing that they should get independent advice
Informed consent in writing
It’s more things than you think like accepting stock as payment and buying or selling property to/from a client
Gifts from Clients
A lawyer can’t
Solicit a substantial gift from a client
Prepare an instrument giving a substantial gift to the lawyer (except if it’s your relative—different story)
California-you can do it even for not a relative if they were advised by an independent lawyer who provides a certificate of independent review
Gifts to Clients
Litigation
Can advance court costs and that can be contingent on winning
Indigent-can pay outright but only the court costs
Pro bono-can pay basic living expenses but you can’t like make a thing out of it
California
Not just litigation but all contexts
Can’t buy a potential client
It’s not just litigation expenses but all expenses
Can lend money to a client for any purpose if the client promises in writing to pay them back
Third party can also idk this is super confusing
Aggregate Settlement agreements
Inform both parties and informed consent in writing-just be transparent
Payment from Someone Other than the Client
Client informed consent
No interference from the other party
Protect information
CA-none is necessary if it’s requested by a court order or they’re rendering services on behalf of an agency or nonprofit
Settling Malpractice
Can’t settle if they’re unrepresented unless you advise them in writing to get outside counsel and they have time and opportunity to do so
Limiting your own Liability
If you try to do it they have to be independently represented
CA-can’t do it
Media Rights to a Case
Can only get them after the client’s matter has concluded including appeal
CA-no specific rule—you treat it as a business transaction
Foreclosure and Sale
CA only
Can’t purchase from a foreclosure sale when you or someone from your firm is representing them
Represent the seller if the purchaser is related to the firm or you
Sexual Relationships With Clients
Has to predate the representation
Not imputed but you still have to see if it will materially limit the representation
Conflict with Former Client
Can’t represent someone whose interests are adverse to your former client in a substantially related matter without informed consent
substantially related matter-same transaction or legal dispute or
There could be information overlap
Remember this can also be analyzed with the material limitation to your
If it’s an imputed conflict, you also have to look at where you acquired confidential information
When the Info Came from the Firm’s Representation and not Yours
If you just have confidential information then you can be screened and not share in the fee
And the former client has to be given notice
Firm and their Former Client
Can’t do it if one remaining lawyer has confidential information then no or if it’s the same or a substantially related matter
And as with all of these things, there needs to be informed consent, confirmed in writing
Prospective Clients
You receive confidential info from a consultation you can’t represent an adverse party later on if the information could be significantly harmful unless both consent
CA-it’s material information not just information that could be significantly harmful
Firm imputation
Disqualified lawyer tried not to get more information than necessary
DQd lawyer is screened and won’t share in the fee
Give written notice to the prospective client but you don’t have to do informed consent
Going from Gov to Private Work
Can’t have worked on something personally and substantially on a matter and creating a regulation isn’t a matter
Can also receive information that could be used to the material disadvantage even to the opposing party
Going from Gov to Private Work
Can’t have worked on something personally and substantially on a matter and creating a regulation isn’t a matter
Can also receive information that could be used to the material disadvantage even to the opposing party
Private Sector to Government Work
Basically the same conflict rules as normal