Comments on: California expands unbundling to all civil cases http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/ news, views and info on self-help law and pro se litigation Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:11:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: David R. Chamberlin http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-24411 David R. Chamberlin Wed, 06 May 2009 21:28:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-24411 I am a California licensed attorney who has recently embarked on providing limited scope representation. Although at times maintaining the limitations as agreed upon can be difficult - a natural tendency exists to expand the lawyers role toward full representation - assisting people, often in the midst of litigation, protect and advance their rights has been extraordinarily satisfying. Regards, David Chamberlin,Esq. I am a California licensed attorney who has recently embarked on providing limited scope representation. Although at times maintaining the limitations as agreed upon can be difficult – a natural tendency exists to expand the lawyers role toward full representation – assisting people, often in the midst of litigation, protect and advance their rights has been extraordinarily satisfying.

Regards,

David Chamberlin,Esq.

]]> By: Teresa Aguilar http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-1841 Teresa Aguilar Sat, 12 May 2007 22:08:40 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-1841 Do you know any lawyer in Los Angeles area who provides Limited Repentation? I have not been able to find one and I need help. To read about my case, just copy and paste the links below; some of my evidence can be seen in the last link that says "Exhibits." Pls email me at teresaaguilar@excite.com with cc to tessmrqz@yahoo.com to make sure I receive your reply. My case Nos.are Court of Appeal No. B195983 (Super.Ct. No. BC-341721.) Thank you, teresa aguilar http://www.geocities.com/tessmrqz/Case_1.html http://www.geocities.com/tessmrqz/Case_II.html http://www.geocities.com/tessmrqz/Exhibits.pdf Do you know any lawyer in Los Angeles area who provides Limited Repentation? I have not been able to find one and I need help. To read about my case, just copy and paste the links below; some of my evidence can be seen in the last link that says “Exhibits.” Pls email me at teresaaguilar@excite.com with cc to tessmrqz@yahoo.com to make sure I receive your reply. My case Nos.are Court of Appeal No. B195983
(Super.Ct. No. BC-341721.) Thank you, teresa aguilar

http://www.geocities.com/tessmrqz/Case_1.html
http://www.geocities.com/tessmrqz/Case_II.html
http://www.geocities.com/tessmrqz/Exhibits.pdf

]]> By: david giacalone http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-838 david giacalone Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:34:55 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-838 The California rules you mention are only applicable to California courts. Florida Rule of Professional Conduct <a href="http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/8bf68c7a6fda323085256bc800648cce/b97185a8d94f11f985256e1600596e31?OpenDocument" rel="nofollow">4-1.2(c)</a> relates to scope of representation. It says: "(c) Limitation of Objectives and Scope of Representation. If not prohibited by law or rule, a lawyer and client may agree to limit the objectives or scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client consents in writing after consultation. If the attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the representation, the lawyer shall advise the client regarding applicability of the rule prohibiting communication with a represented person." You will have to do further research, or ask a lawyer familiar with Florida law, whether other rules exists concerning appearing in court under a limited-scope of representation agreement. The California rules you mention are only applicable to California courts. Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.2(c) relates to scope of representation. It says:

“(c) Limitation of Objectives and Scope of Representation. If not prohibited by law or rule, a lawyer and client may agree to limit the objectives or scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client consents in writing after consultation. If the attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the representation, the lawyer shall advise the client regarding applicability of the rule prohibiting communication with a represented person.”

You will have to do further research, or ask a lawyer familiar with Florida law, whether other rules exists concerning appearing in court under a limited-scope of representation agreement.

]]> By: bellir http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-835 bellir Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:53:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-835 I would like to know if the rules 3.36, 3.37, 3.38 also apply to Florida. Your link to Florida is not working. I live in California but my medico legal malpractice case is in Florida. I have done a lot of work on my own case and wanted to find an attorney to help me with discovery papers and also with representation in court. I have built a website so it would be easier for the attorney. tks Bellir I would like to know if the rules 3.36, 3.37, 3.38 also apply to Florida.
Your link to Florida is not working.

I live in California but my medico legal malpractice case is in Florida. I have done a lot of work on my own case and wanted to find an attorney to help me with discovery papers and also with representation in court.

I have built a website so it would be easier for the attorney.
tks
Bellir

]]> By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » universal unbundling unfolds in California http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-491 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » universal unbundling unfolds in California Tue, 02 Jan 2007 23:56:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-491 [...] Today is the first business day on which ”unbundled” legal services will be available in all civil cases in California courts (see our posting dated Nov. 1, 2006) Lawyers are now able to make “limited appearances” in every kind of California civil case, performing only the discrete tasks agreed upon by the attorney with his or her well-informed client.   Litigation unbundling is explicitly allowed in only a small number of states — and, in most of them, only in very limited contexts (usually family court and divorce matters).   Therefore, having universal unbundling unequivocally allowed in America’s most populous state is (to use a technical legal term) “a really big deal”. California Rules of Court 3.35(a) defines “Limited scope representation” as “a relationship between an attorney and a person seeking legal services in which they have agreed that the scope of the legal services will be limited to specific tasks that the attorney will perform for the person.”  Rule 3.36 covers “Noticed representation” — providing procedures for cases in which an attorney and a party notify the court and other parties of the limited scope representation.  Rule 3.37 covers “Undisclosed representation” (including ghostwriting and coaching). [...] [...] Today is the first business day on which ”unbundled” legal services will be available in all civil cases in California courts (see our posting dated Nov. 1, 2006) Lawyers are now able to make “limited appearances” in every kind of California civil case, performing only the discrete tasks agreed upon by the attorney with his or her well-informed client.   Litigation unbundling is explicitly allowed in only a small number of states — and, in most of them, only in very limited contexts (usually family court and divorce matters).   Therefore, having universal unbundling unequivocally allowed in America’s most populous state is (to use a technical legal term) “a really big deal”. California Rules of Court 3.35(a) defines “Limited scope representation” as “a relationship between an attorney and a person seeking legal services in which they have agreed that the scope of the legal services will be limited to specific tasks that the attorney will perform for the person.”  Rule 3.36 covers “Noticed representation” — providing procedures for cases in which an attorney and a party notify the court and other parties of the limited scope representation.  Rule 3.37 covers “Undisclosed representation” (including ghostwriting and coaching). [...]

]]> By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » all bundled up in New York http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-336 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » all bundled up in New York Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:47:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-336 [...] Despite progress elsewhere, Rochelle Klempner’s presentation to a May 2006 Conference on Access to Justice for the Self-Represented (which was hosted by the NYS Courts and included a session on Unbundling), noted that “To date, New York has neither adopted nor proposed any changes to its Disciplinary Rules or Civil Practice Laws and Rules.”  Her paper, “Unbundled Legal Services in Litigated Matters in New York State (May 2006, 14 pp. pdf) looks at the history of the issue in the State,  [...] [...] Despite progress elsewhere, Rochelle Klempner’s presentation to a May 2006 Conference on Access to Justice for the Self-Represented (which was hosted by the NYS Courts and included a session on Unbundling), noted that “To date, New York has neither adopted nor proposed any changes to its Disciplinary Rules or Civil Practice Laws and Rules.”  Her paper, “Unbundled Legal Services in Litigated Matters in New York State (May 2006, 14 pp. pdf) looks at the history of the issue in the State,  [...]

]]> By: “unbundling” legal services « practice management blog http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-175 “unbundling” legal services « practice management blog Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:25:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-175 [...] At the blog shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress, David Giacalone reports on the California Judicial Council’s Oct. 20 vote to extend to all civil cases its rule permitting attorneys to provide limited-scope representation. Coincidentally, Massachusetts just approved a pilot project starting Nov. 1 under which lawyers may provide limited assistance to pro se clients in probate and family court, as I noted last week on my blog LawSites. [...] [...] At the blog shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress, David Giacalone reports on the California Judicial Council’s Oct. 20 vote to extend to all civil cases its rule permitting attorneys to provide limited-scope representation. Coincidentally, Massachusetts just approved a pilot project starting Nov. 1 under which lawyers may provide limited assistance to pro se clients in probate and family court, as I noted last week on my blog LawSites. [...]

]]> By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » Mass. project allows limited court appearances http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-civil-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-166 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » Mass. project allows limited court appearances Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:05:08 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/11/01/california-expands-unbundling-to-all-ci#comment-166 [...] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has okayed a pilot project that would make it easier for lawyers and pro se litigants to enter into limited scope (”unbundled”) representation agreements in Probate and Family Court proceedings.  . . .  Similar rules already exist in several states, including:  - - California: California Rules of Court, Rule 5.70 and Rule 5.71  [update (Nov. 1, 2006): see Calif. Expands Unbundling to All Civil Cases] - - Florida: Unbundling Rules (discussed in this ABA Journal article)    - - Maine: Bar Rule 3.4(i); Civil Procedure Rules 5, 11 (b) and 89 (a). - - Nevada: Rules of Practice of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Rule 5.2. - - As shlep has reported, court self-help centers in Idaho and Nevada compile lists of attorneys willing to take family law matters on a limited-scope basis. If you know of similar lists, let us know. [...] [...] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has okayed a pilot project that would make it easier for lawyers and pro se litigants to enter into limited scope (”unbundled”) representation agreements in Probate and Family Court proceedings.  . . .  Similar rules already exist in several states, including:  - - California: California Rules of Court, Rule 5.70 and Rule 5.71  [update (Nov. 1, 2006): see Calif. Expands Unbundling to All Civil Cases] – - Florida: Unbundling Rules (discussed in this ABA Journal article)    – - Maine: Bar Rule 3.4(i); Civil Procedure Rules 5, 11 (b) and 89 (a). – - Nevada: Rules of Practice of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Rule 5.2. – - As shlep has reported, court self-help centers in Idaho and Nevada compile lists of attorneys willing to take family law matters on a limited-scope basis. If you know of similar lists, let us know. [...]

]]>