http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/01/02/universal-unbundling-unfolds-in-california/ 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 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/01/02/universal-unbundling-unfolds-in-california/comment-page-1/#comment-1160 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » NJ Fed. Court bars undisclosed ghostwriting Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:24:44 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/01/02/universal-unbundling-unfolds-in-califor#comment-1160 [...] As we reported on January 2, 2007, Rule 3.37 of the California Rules of Court permits “Undisclosed representation,” including ghostwriting and coaching.  Rule 3.37 says: “(a) Nondisclosure. In a civil proceeding, an attorney who contracts with a client to draft or assist in drafting legal documents, but not to make an appearance in the case, is not required to disclose within the text of the documents that he or she was involved in preparing the documents.” (emphasis added) [...] [...] As we reported on January 2, 2007, Rule 3.37 of the California Rules of Court permits “Undisclosed representation,” including ghostwriting and coaching.  Rule 3.37 says: “(a) Nondisclosure. In a civil proceeding, an attorney who contracts with a client to draft or assist in drafting legal documents, but not to make an appearance in the case, is not required to disclose within the text of the documents that he or she was involved in preparing the documents.” (emphasis added) [...]

]]> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/01/02/universal-unbundling-unfolds-in-california/comment-page-1/#comment-1097 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » Colorado Bar Assn: collaborative law is unethical Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:31:19 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2007/01/02/universal-unbundling-unfolds-in-califor#comment-1097 [...] Prof. Alan Childress contrasts and compares collaborative law with unbundling: ”The goal is to stay out of court.  In this sense it is very different from typical “limited representations,” which are often used to facilitate court matters by prepping witnesses and ghost writing briefs.  But it certainly limits upfront the goals and scope of this particular lawyer-client representation.” He explains the Colorado Opinion: “The problem is perceived as one where the lawyer has agreed in advance to look out for the other client’s interest and is not in a position to urge litigation where that is what may be best for his or her own client.  The opinion’s focus is on the pre-agreement that the lawyers sign and the ways they are limiting themselves in advance, said to be violating the Rule 1.7 duty not to allow third party interests (the other client’s) to materially limit what they would be doing with their own client (like filing a motion in court). ” [...] [...] Prof. Alan Childress contrasts and compares collaborative law with unbundling: ”The goal is to stay out of court.  In this sense it is very different from typical “limited representations,” which are often used to facilitate court matters by prepping witnesses and ghost writing briefs.  But it certainly limits upfront the goals and scope of this particular lawyer-client representation.” He explains the Colorado Opinion: “The problem is perceived as one where the lawyer has agreed in advance to look out for the other client’s interest and is not in a position to urge litigation where that is what may be best for his or her own client.  The opinion’s focus is on the pre-agreement that the lawyers sign and the ways they are limiting themselves in advance, said to be violating the Rule 1.7 duty not to allow third party interests (the other client’s) to materially limit what they would be doing with their own client (like filing a motion in court). ” [...]

]]>