False advertising? Guilty as charged.
No, this post isn’t part of my series on Ethics as Access: Using the Rules of Professional Conduct to Increase Access to Legal Services.
However, the only reason it isn’t is that the Vermont Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure has yet to act upon the recommendation that Vermont adopt Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The proposed comment makes it clear that the duty of competence includes a duty of tech competence.
Here, the recommendation has been before the civil rules committee for nearly two years.
Wait…are you thinking “why is the civil rules committee reviewing proposed amendments to the rules of professional conduct?” Me too.
It’s inexplicable to me why, in Vermont, the committee that advises the Court on the Rules of Civil Procedure vets proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct. I’d assume that the Professional Responsibility Board would play that role. After all, when it promulgated Administrative Order 9, the Court vested responsibility for, and supervision of, the Professional Responsibility Program with, that’s right, the Professional Responsibility Board.
Further, the Board employs a full-time bar counsel who, you know, blogs about issues related to attorney ethics. Finally, as most of you are udoubtedly aware, the Rules of Professional Conduct are not part of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Rule 16 of Administrative Order 9 clearly states that “[d]isciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal but are sui generis.”
One might think that just as proposed changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure shouldn’t go through the PRB, proposed changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct shouldn’t go through the Civil Rules Committee.
But one might think a lot of things.
And, anyhow, I digress. Back to tech, ethics, and technological competence as access.
Not sure how to fit in pro bono work? Here’s an interesting post from the ABA on how technology is making it easier to do pro bono work.
As I’ve preached, competence includes tech competence. I’ve also blogged about pro bono work. If you accept the proposition that competence includes tech competence (which the ABA and 25 states have accepted), and if you believe in pro bono work, then remember that tech can make it easier for you to comply with Rule 6.1’s aspirational goal.
For all my posts on tech ethics, go here.