the archives of f/k/a . . .

On Feb. 12, 2005, twenty months after ethicalEsq first stuck his nose into the blogisphere,

we finally have another weblog devoted to legal ethics — this time, with professors.  So, the

f/k/a “gang” give their heartiest welcome to Legal Ethics Forum, and its editor/contributors —

University of Texas law prof John S. Dzienkowski, Cornell law prof W. Bradley Wendel (cv),

and Berkeley (Boalt Hall) law lecturer, John J. Steele, who is also a practicing lawyer (and

former Master Sergeant). (via Point of Law)

 

                                                                                                                    Sgt. Steele, original here   

 

With ethicalEsq and Prof. Yabut back on emeritus/retired status, we’re pleased at the

thought of three active, healthy ethics professionals sharing information and ideas

regularly on the Web.  Here’s my unsolicited advice for the LEFers:

“tinyredcheck”  Please don’t forget the ethical issues that are important to the “average”

consumer of legal services (e.g., affordable fees; full information on rights

and options; access to justice, Self-Help and pro se advances; adequate

disciplinary systems). You can always click on our ethics resources page

for ideas (joining our “value billing” debate would be nice), or check our

daily potluck blurbs.

 

Don’t merely call for a discussion of legal ethics and the legal profession —

take positions, show some attitude.  Come on, you’re professors, at least

play devil’s advocate or issue-spotter!  [update: see Steele on Stewart for

some attitude.]

 

  Interact with the rest of the weblawg world.  If nothing else, regularly

check out Lisa’s roundup at Legal Blog Watch, and pick out a few other weblogs.

 

 Join the discussion — by responding at LEF and/or leaving Comments at other

weblogs.   For example, in the past few weeks, we all would have appreciated

your input on: 

- the definition of the “practice of law” and ULP, as raised recently by HALT 

in Georgia and Virginia, and by MyShingle concerning Illinois, and The

Common Scold regarding California.  (see our post this week)

 

- the appropriateness of Pape & Chandler’s PIT BULL logo.

 

- the valentine-divorce lawyer, and the resulting discussion of lawyer

fiduciaries and their duty to disclose options.

 

- the broader definition of pro bono services proposed by an NYSBA

committee;

 

- the reasonableness of contingency fees in light of the lawyer’s fiduciary

obligations to the client — at MyShingle and, always, at f/k/a.

 

- the adequacy of indigent defense systems [Gideon report]– and the

comparison of public defender and assigned counsel systems (see C&F). 

 

- how (much) to pay assigned counsel and whether they should engage in

“strikes” that are really unlawful joint boycotts.

Welcome again to Legal Ethics Forum.  I hope you’ll help make the concept of “ethical

lawyering” much more than a question of following least-common-denominator rules — and

help define what it truly means to always put the client’s interests first.

 

in the harvest moonlight
unruffled, unaffected
scarecrow

 

 

hazy night–
sake is flowing
waterfall and moon

 

 

if only she were here
for me to nag…
tonight’s moon!

 

 

Kobayashi Issa - translated by David G. Lanoue