Filed under Ethics & Professionalism …

Feb 15 2013
CLE, Elimination of Bias, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, MCLE, Online CLE

The Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession

screen-capture

The Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession is a required course in California.  California is one of the few states with a mandatory bias and discrimination MCLE requirement.  In many other states, courses dealing with bias and discrimination in the legal system qualify for legal ethics credit.

Instead of lawyers in firms arguing about whether there is in fact anything “wrong” at their firm that needs correcting, they now discuss how improving their representation of women and minorities may enhance their business. That debate is usually a far less controversial one since, not surprisingly, it is easier for lawyers to reach a consensus about activities aimed at enhancing revenue and profits as opposed to achieving social justice.[1]

While the main rationale used to justify and advance diversity in law firms used to be moral, now it’s the bottom line that is driving the push.  Because of an expanded client base, it now makes economic sense to promote diversity within your firm.  Further, some Fortune 500 companies have demanded that the law firms they employ become more diverse – and they have fired them when they didn’t comply.[2]

While this may be a required course for some, many attorneys and people inside the legal profession view it as an important topic.  Attorney Credits has worked with a number of excellent practitioners to produce insightful CLE courses on this topic.  We are proud of our wide selection of bias and discrimination courses that we offer attorneys around the country.

  • Bias & Discrimination in the Legal Profession – What Can Be Done?
  • Eliminating Biases You Never Knew You Had
  • Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession
  • Elimination of Bias in the Legal System
  • The Elimination of Bias & Promotion of Diversity in the Legal Profession

To view Attorney Credits’ selection of course dealing with bias, discrimination, diversity and inclusion please click here.

[1] Diversity Makes Cents

http://www.netforlawyers.com/page/diversity-makes-cents

[2] Under Pressure: Corporate demands for minority hiring have law firms paying attention but will fundamental changes occur?

http://masslawyersweekly.com/wp-files/pdfs/ma/05/CCS_112105.pdf

 

Tagged , , , ,
Nov 15 2012
California MCLE, CLE, Elimination of Bias, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, Online CLE, Substance Abuse

California CLE Courses: Ethics, Bias & Substance Abuse

If you have an impending CLE deadline in California and you need to pick up specialty courses, we have the ethics, substance abuse and elimination of bias courses that you need.  At Attorney Credits CLE, we have been hard at work this year and we have made an extra push to film numerous legal ethics, substance abuse and elimination of bias courses so that our attorney clients in California have a wide selection of specialty CLE courses to choose from.

Legal Ethics:

Substance Abuse:

Elimination of Bias:

California (CA) attorneys need to complete a minimum of 4 credit hours of legal ethics, 1 credit hour of substance abuse and 1 credit hour of elimination of bias each three year compliance period. California attorneys who are in Group 1 have until January 31 to complete the required 25 credit hours and must report compliance by February 1.
If you need further information about MCLE in California, please click the links below:
Nov 09 2012
CLE, Client Funds, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, Law & Technology, Litigation, Malpractice, MCLE, Online CLE, Personal Injury, Substance Abuse

Avoiding Ethical Violations & Legal Malpractice Claims

Legal Malpractice – two words attorneys never want to hear in their legal career … unless they are taking a CLE course with Attorney Credits.  There are many avenues that can lead to a malpractice claim, from conflicts of interest to improperly calendaring important dates.  However, many of these ethical traps can easily be avoided with a little knowledge and diligence.

We have just added an excellent resource for attorneys entitled Avoiding Ethical Violations & Legal Malpractice Claims: An Expert’s Perspective. Prominent Legal Malpractice attorney James E. King provides a comprehensive discussion of the common ethical pitfalls that  lead to ethical violations from the state bar and legal malpractice claims from your clients.

The main topics discussed include:

  • The Golden Rules
  • The attorney client relationship
  • Avoiding legal malpractice during the representation
  • Avoiding legal malpractice once the attorney client relationship has terminated

In addition to the main topics Mr. King also discusses a number of other pertinent ethical considerations. Further points addressed include communicating with clients, procrastination, keeping current on fees, substance abuse, representing multiple clients, potential conflicts, clarifying & limiting the scope of the attorney client relationship, the retention agreement, clients who habitually change attorneys, suing for legal fees, withdrawal, handling matters promptly, staying current on the law, the “rescue attorney,’ mistakes, keeping a clear record and client papers.

The course is currently offered in the following states and qualifies for 3 credits hours of Legal Ethics:

James E. King is the Founder of the King Law Corporation in San Diego.  Mr. King specializes in attorney fee disputes, legal ethics, and advises corporate counsel and law firms on litigation costs.  Mr. King has testified as an expert witness on numerous attorney-client fee disputes and has skillfully represented prominent clients such as Prince Fahd Aziz of Saudi Arabia and Heisman Trophy winner Rashaan Salaam.  Mr. King serves as a Special Master for the State Bar of California and is Vice-Chair of the Fee Arbitration Committee for the San Diego County Bar Association.  Jim also lectures and publishes works on attorney fee ethics and other related topics.

Jul 20 2012
Leave a comment
CLE, Ethics & Professionalism, MCLE, Online CLE

Attorney Credits Now Offers MECLE and VCLE in Alaska

By Jason Castillo, Director of Legal Education

Alaska is known as the “The Last Frontier State” because of its distance from the lower 48 states, rugged landscape and inhospitable climate. Luckily, now that we offer CLE in Alaska, attorneys can complete their required units from the comfort of their home or office – without stepping foot into the inhospitable climate.

Alaska attorneys have one of the lighter CLE requirements in the country and is the only state with MECLE and VCLE credit hours.  According to the Alaska Bar, members are required to earn 3 mandatory ethics credits (MECLE) and “encouraged to earn 9 additional credits.”[1]  These additional 9 credits are known as VCLE units – or voluntary CLE units.[2]

 State MCLE Requirement

  • Total MCLE Credits Required: 3 MECLE, 9 VCLE

Compliance Requirements

  • Reporting Cycle: 1 year
  • Compliance Deadline: December 31
  • Reporting Deadline: February 1

Carryover

  • Carryover Allowed: Yes
  • Number of Carryover Credits Allowed: 12

State Regulatory Entity

Alaska attorneys may complete all their CLE requirements with some of our more popular courses and bundle packages.  Click here to view accredited courses on the Alaska course list.  Click here to view one-click state bundles that are offered in Alaska.

Visit the links below for more information:

[1] Alaska Bar Rule 65 governs Bar member requirements and incentives, and approval of CLE courses, content, and activities. All Alaska state bar members are required to take at least three Mandatory Ethics Continuing Legal Education (MECLE) credits each year. Each member is also required to complete at least nine Voluntary Continuing Legal Education (VCLE) credits each year.

[2] According to Alaska Rule 65 qualifying educational topics may include professional responsibility, workplace ethics, law office management, attention to cases and clients, time management, malpractice prevention, collegiality, general attorney wellness, and professionalism.

Jul 03 2012
Leave a comment
Blogging, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, Facebook, Google, Jury, Law & Technology, Legal Research, Social Media, Twitter, Voir Dire

Beware of Online Juror Contact

Web 2.0 has made it much easier to communicate with friends, relatives and fellow attorneys.  But the Internet and Web 2.0 have also created numerous new ethical traps.

For example, many attorneys have recently turned to Google and Facebook to research both potential and sitting jurors. However, attorneys must be very careful to avoid ex parte contact with jurors online.  And ex parte contact can be widely construed according to a recent ethics opinion from the New York City Bar Association.

“If an attorney cannot ascertain the functionality of a website, the attorney must proceed with great caution in conducting research on that particular site, and should keep in mind the possibility that even an accidental, automated notice to the juror could be considered a violation.”

Formal Opinion 2012-2 states that even if an attorney unknowingly or inadvertently “causes a communication with a juror,” such conduct could possibly afoul of the state’s professional conduct rules. And as stated in numerous ethics opinions, attorneys must not use deception to obtain information about potential and sitting jurors. Some attorneys have used other associates and paralegals to send ‘friend’ requests on Facebook to gain access to a juror’s Facebook page.  This is considered deceptive and unethical conduct.

Attorneys ethical duties have become more clouded in the era of Facebook, Google and Twitter.  The New York ethics opinion should serve as guidance in the abscene of rules that directly address the conduct.  Ethics opinions carry a lot of weight with courts and regulators around the country and even if you don’t practice in New York these are valuable resources.

For more information on the subject, click the following links:

We also have an excellent CLE course on the subject featuring Patrick Eckstrom and John Stahmer.  The course in entitled Ethics in a Web 2.0 world and it is accredited for 1 credit hour of legal ethics.

May 15 2012
Leave a comment
CLE, Ethics & Professionalism, Illinois MCLE, MCLE, Online CLE

Illinois MCLE Requirement Now 30 Units

By Jason Castillo, Director of Legal Education

If you are an Illinois attorney – and your last name begins with A-M – you must now complete 30 units to fulfill your MCLE requirement OR be entitled to claim a valid exemption no later than June 30.[1]  This 30 hour requirement includes 6 units of Professional Responsibility.[2]  Also, different rules and requirements apply to newly admitted attorneys.[3]

There is a grace period for attorneys that have not yet completed the required MCLE credit hours by June 30.  This grace period extension ends on September 30, 2012.  However, it will cost you if you fall into the grace period.  If your MCLE is not completed by June 30, one of two late fees will apply:

  • $100 if the attorney reports non-compliance by July 31, 2012
  • $150 if the attorney fails to report compliance, non-compliance or a valid exemption by July 31, 2012.

Attorneys may report online or respond to certification forms mailed by the Illinois MCLE Board.  Online reporting is done through the MCLE Board Online Reporting System.  To access the online attorney reporting website click the following link:

https://www.mcleboard.org/atty_reporting/login.aspx

Attorneys may access the Illinois MCLE Board online reporting system to complete a number of tasks including reporting MCLE compliance and making payments.[4]  Lastly, the Supreme Court of Illinois amended the MCLE Rules and the MCLE Board’s fee schedule effective September 27, 2011.  For a list of changes click here.

We have a number of one-click state bundles to fulfill the Illinois 30 credit hour MCLE requirement. Click here to view:

Click these links for further information:

What is a two-year Illinois reporting period?

Newly Admitted Attorneys, Did You Know …

MCLE Requirements in Illinois

How do I report MCLE compliance?

Attorney reporting periods and required CLE hours

[1] Illinois attorneys have a two-year reporting period according to Rule 794. Different rules apply with respect to newly admitted attorneys. Rule 793. An attorney’s two-year reporting period depends on the first letter of the attorney’s last name as it appeared on the master roll of attorneys on July 1, 2006 if the attorney was admitted to the Illinois bar by June 30, 2006 or, if admitted on July 1, 2006 or later, the attorney’s last name upon admission.

[2] This includes professionalism, diversity issues, mental illness and addiction issues, civility or legal ethics as per Rule 794(d)(1).

[3] Newly-admitted attorneys must comply with the requirements of Rule 793 and must complete a total of 15 credit hours

[4] To use the online reporting system, you must log in using your attorney registration number that was issued by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).  The ARDC number appears on your ARDC card and annual registration form.

Apr 22 2012
Leave a comment
ABA Model Rules, CLE, Client Funds, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, Malpractice

No Such Thing as a Non-Refundable Retainer?

By Jason Castillo, Director of Legal Education

The Iowa Supreme Court recently suspended a retired Iowa attorney for 30 days after ruling that a fee agreement with a criminal defendant was unethical.  According to the opinion, “the amount of the fee charged and collected by Vilmont for performing the limited and insignificant services in representing his client was, without question, unreasonable.”  The court then stated that a reasonable fee would have been about $600 under the circumstances of the case.  To read the opinion, click here.

The charges arose from attorney Bill Vilmont’s representation of a client on a state charge of enticement of a minor.  According to the Iowa Supreme Court opinion, the agreement provided for charges of $225 an hour, with a minimum fee of $2,500 to be paid with a retainer.  The $2,500 retainer was placed in a trust.

When the state charges were dropped in leiu of federal charges, the client dropped Vilmont and retained a different attorney to represent him in federal court, according to court documents.  Five days after the state charge was dismissed, Vilmont withdrew the $2,500 from the trust account without notifying his former client, according to the opinion.  Vilmont then ignored several requests to return the retainer.

Vilmont provided an accounting to the Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board showing that he worked 3.7 hours on the client’s case – including one hour to provide the accounting.  The court, however, ruled that the minimum fee contract was “clearly unethical” and that Vilmont had failed to provide a timely accounting.

After scanning some of the comments on the ABA website, it’s clear that a number of attorneys did not agree with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.  However, in the words of attorney fee expert James King, there is no such thing as a non-refundable retainer.  All unearned fees must be returned to the client.[1]  Under California Rule 3-700(D)(2), unless the attorney and client have contracted for a “true retainer,” the attorney must refund any portion of an advance fee that the attorney has not yet earned.[2]

And an examination of authority reveals that only “true retainers” are nonrefundable – and these are extremely rare.  When a client discharges an attorney, the Rules of Professional Conduct require the attorney to “[p]romptly refund any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned.”[3]  In California and other states there are also Ethics Opinions that address the subject.

What are your thoughts?

For more information, we have a few resources available for you:

[1] Baranowski v. State Bar (1979) 24 Cal.3d 153.

[2] The California Rules also state that a refund is unnecessary if the money is “a true retainer fee … paid solely for the purpose of ensuring the availability of the member for the matter” (see Rule 3-700(D)(2).  However, in the words of the California Supreme Court, true retainers are very rare these days.

[3] See California Ethics Opinion 01-02 which speculates that there are probably only a handful of situations in which a client would want to pay a true retainer.

Jan 04 2012
Leave a comment
California MCLE, CLE, Ethics & Professionalism, Online CLE

The MCLE Reporting Deadline in California is February 1

If you are a California attorney and your MCLE deadline is in 2012 ask yourself two questions.  Do you want to look like the attorney on the left?  Or would you rather look like the attorney on the right?

Well, if your last name begins with H-M and you are a California attorney your MCLE compliance deadline is rapidly approaching. You have about 4 weeks left until the California CLE reporting deadline on February 1, 2012.

Of course we can help you with all your MCLE needs if you have questions about your compliance or you need CLE courses to fulfill your CLE compliance. The last thing that we would want is for you to get fined or have your license suspended because you did not meet your MCLE requirement with the State Bar of California.

For further information about MCLE in California please click the links below:

Oct 30 2011
Leave a comment
ABA Model Rules, Blogging, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, Facebook, Law & Technology, Law Practice Management, Malpractice, Social Media

Time to Add a Disclaimer to Your Blog?

As I blogged about previously, earlier in the month the Virginia Bar charged attorney Richmond Attorney Horace Hunter with misconduct due to his Richmond Criminal Defense News blog (PDF here).[1]

The attorney in question has now been found guilty of violating the Virginia ethics rules regarding advertising. Don’t fear for Hunter, his penalty was a public admonition and he was told take corrective action within 30 days – public admonition is the least sever penalty available.

Specifically, the Virginia Disciplinary Committee found that Hunter violated an ethical rule that mandated an advertising disclaimer on his blog when he wrote about his own legal cases.  Under Virginia Ethics Rule 7.2 Hunter must ethically post a disclaimer on the homepage of his blog.[2]  Since Hunter didn’t have the disclaimer in his blog posts noting his firm’s wins to be advertising, the Committee found his conduct to be unethical.

The Committee further found that Horace Frazier Hunter violated rules by disclosing detrimental or embarrassing information about clients without their consent.  Apparently, at least two former clients said they did not want their cases posted on Hunter’s blog after learning that he had written about their cases.

Hunter had argued that his blog consisted of news and commentary and refused to post the disclaimer as a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. He claimed that since the information he posted was accurate and disclosed during public trials, that he did not violate any confidences.

“Although I adamantly disagree with the panel’s decision, I do respect it” [3]

The Virginia Disciplinary Committee contends that the disclaimer is aimed at preventing potential clients from being misled – something that could generate mistrust of the justice system or make clients mistrust their lawyers.  The Committee did not see the First Amendment as being involved in the case.

“The First Amendment has no bearing on this violation. … It doesn’t impact journalists, it doesn’t impact bloggers, it doesn’t impact the general public.” – Renu Brennan, Assistant Virginia Bar Counsel [4]

Will this move have the chilling effect that some have proposed? [5]  I doubt it.  Attorneys might, however, want to start including a disclaimer on their blog if they talk about their cases.

Further, it’s always wise to remember to remain ethical in our new Web 2.0 World. Absent a specific rule or guideline, it’s always wise to use common sense.

[2] However, this Rule 7.2 Disclaimer Rule is only to apply, “when listing previous wins in advertising.”  The disclaimer must state that prior results don’t guarantee future success. The issue will be will be whether Hunter’s blog posts are written in a truly journalistic fashion, or are they simply disguised advertising taking the form of blog posts

[3] See: Virginia Bar Rules that Lawyer Violated Advertising Rules with his Blog

[4] See: Virginia Bar Rules that Lawyer Violated Advertising Rules with his Blog

[5] The Washington Post‘s Capital Business Blog originally reported the story and stirred the pot when it cautioned that the action against Hunter could have a chilling effect on blogging in the legal industry. Washington Posts’s Catherine Ho (@WapoCat on Twitter) warned that Virginia lawyers who blog about their cases may suffer  the consequences from their state bar.  Ms. Ho also state that the Hunter case could set precedent for other states bar’s limiting legal blogs.

Sep 03 2011
ABA Model Rules, CLE, Email, Ethics & Professionalism, Ethics Codes, Expectation of Privacy, Law & Technology, Malpractice, Online CLE

ABA Suggests Added Duties for Emailing Attorneys

ABA Formal Opinion 11-459 discusses the steps that lawyers must take to address the risk of third parties gaining access to email and text communications with a client.  The Formal Opinion –  entitled Duty to Protect the Confidentiality of E-mail Communications with One’s Client – seems to suggest that lawyers now have an added duty to warn clients of the confidentiality concerns when sending ‘substantive’ client communications via email, text and other electronic means.

A lawyer sending or receiving substantive communications with a client via e-mail or other electronic means ordinarily must warn the client about the risk of sending or receiving electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account, where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access.

The main gist of the opinion is that people send emails and texts messages from numerous sources.  People don’t just have one desktop computer that they solely use – now people have smartphones, work on computers in the library or at a hotel, or use other people’s devices to email/text.  Further, your client may be at risk because of the electronic devices they are accessing your emails on – namely their employers computer.  And many company’s written internal policy provide that the company has a right of access to all employees’ computers and e-mail files – this even extends to those relating to employees’ personal matters.  This is troublesome for the confidentiality of this information.

Model Rule 1.6 requires a lawyer to refrain from revealing “information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent.”  Therefore, Formal Opinion suggests that the attorneys must advise that the confidential information may be compromised by the computer or other electronic device that the client uses to access the electronic communications.

A lawyer sending or receiving substantive communications with a client via e-mail or other electronic means ordinarily must warn the client about the risk of sending or receiving electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account, where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access.

When is the duty to advise triggered?

In the context of representing an employee, this obligation arises, at the very least, when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client is likely to send or receive substantive client- lawyer communications via e-mail or other electronic means, using a business device or system under circumstances where there is a significant risk that the communications will be read by the employer or another third party.

The bottom line is a little bit vague.  If there is a “a significant risk that third parties will have access to the communications,” an attorney must take reasonable care to protect the confidentiality of the electronic communications by giving “appropriately tailored advice to the client.”

What consists of “appropriately tailored advice to the client?”  That’s anybody’s guess.  However, I would suggest an appropriately tailored line or two addressing these concerns in your email disclaimer.

Further Resources:

ABA Formal Opinion 11-459

ABA FYI: Playing it Safe With Encryption

Legal Industry Series, Part 1: Are Lawyers Required to Encrypt Client Email?

← Older posts