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 —
and Berkeley (Boalt Hall) law lecturer, John J. Steele, who is also a practicing lawyer (and
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.
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
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
– 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!
February 26, 2005
finally, another legal ethics weblog
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
David:
Thanks for the welcome, and for the tips. For attitude, see my post “Lynne Stewart’s Betrayal.” We will be doing interviews, so shoot me an email letting me know whose interviews you’d like to read.
John Steele
Comment by John Steele — February 26, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
David:
Thanks for the welcome, and for the tips. For attitude, see my post “Lynne Stewart’s Betrayal.” We will be doing interviews, so shoot me an email letting me know whose interviews you’d like to read.
John Steele
Comment by John Steele — February 26, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
Thanks for stopping by, John. I do like your take on Lawyer Stewart and I hope my readers will check it out — here.
I shall give some thought to interviewees for LEF. I’ll be in your neighborhood regularly, and hope you come on back to our space.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 26, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
Thanks for stopping by, John. I do like your take on Lawyer Stewart and I hope my readers will check it out — here.
I shall give some thought to interviewees for LEF. I’ll be in your neighborhood regularly, and hope you come on back to our space.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 26, 2005 @ 11:07 pm