The guys at Ethics & Lawyering Today got their Late July edition out just in time (July 31, 2003). In contrast to the often prolix and pontificating style of this blawg, you can count on “pithy and practical” information from William
In addition to discussing and providing the text to four court cases on confidentiality, and two opinions on secret taping, the latest edition has three other topics of particular interest to this Editor:
(1) Delaware Sends a Signal on “Enhanced Duties” of Managing Partners. EandLT explains that “Delaware managing partners have ‘enhanced obligations’ under Delaware rules to ensure that their firms comply with the ethics rules, especially including rules governing trust accounts.” See In re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851 (May 2, 2003) Here’s a message that ought to be heard across the nation.
(2) Impaired Lawyers: New ABA Opinion Addresses Duties of Firms, Lawyers Concerning Impaired Lawyer. The authors discuss the ABA Ethics Committee’s Formal Opinion 03-429 (June 11, 2003). The focus is on the duty of a firm to clients and to the disciplinary system when an attorney has a mental impairment. Here’s the synopsis of the opinion from the ABA website:. .
Obligations With Respect to Mentally Impaired Lawyer in the Firm
If a lawyer’s mental impairment is known to partners in a law firm or a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the impaired lawyer, steps must be taken that are designed to give reasonable assurance that such impairment will not result in breaches of the Model Rules. If the mental impairment of a lawyer has resulted in a violation of the Model Rules, an obligation may exist to report the violation to the appropriate professional authority. If the firm removes the impaired lawyer in a matter, it may have an obligation to discuss with the client the circumstances surrounding the change of responsibility. If the impaired lawyer resigns or is removed from the firm, the firm may have disclosure obligations to clients who are considering whether to continue to use the firm or shift their relationship to the departed lawyer, but must be careful to limit any statements made to ones for which there is a factual foundation. The obligation to report a violation of the Model Rules by an impaired lawyer is not eliminated by departure of the impaired lawyer. (emphasis added)
- As mentioned in our posting on June 30th, the June issue of the DC Bar magazine, Washington Lawyer, has a Bar Counsel column titled Factoring Disabilities Into Discipline: A Special Equation. In it, Joyce E. Peters explains the complications that arise when substance abuse, mental illness or other disabilities are brought into the disciplinary process. Also, if you’re looking for an Articles Archive for Lawyers Seeking Counseling on substance abuse, depression, or stress, you can find a good one on the DCBar website.
(3) Client Files: North Dakota Adopts New Rule Banning Retaining Lien, Clarifying Obligations on Client Files. EandLT explains discusses and links to a new N.D. Rulemaking that “bans retaining liens on client files and provides reasonably clear and very helpful guidelines for client access to a lawyer’s file.” North Dakota Rule of Professional Conduct 1.19 (effective Aug. 1, 2003).
As you can see, there’s lots of good stuff at their site, including their Archives.