Today’s post updates/revisits topics I’ve previously discussed:
- duties to clients when a lawyer leaves a firm.
- Tech competence: it’s been 16 years (!) since Zubulake.
- Arizona adopts significant regulatory reform.
Duties to Clients when a Lawyer Leaves a Firm
In September, I posted Leaving A Law Firm: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do. The post highlights the duties that a departing lawyer and firm owe to clients. It’s based (mostly) on a formal advisory opinion that the ABA issued in 1999.
Then, in December, I posted this update after the ABA Standing Committee On Ethics And Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 489: Obligations Related to Notice When Lawyers Change Firms.
Update: Last month, the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct issued Formal Opinion 2020-06: Lawyer Departing a Law Firm. The opinion tracks the most recent ABA opinion. Summary:
- When a lawyer with “principal responsibility” for a client matter departs a firm, the lawyer is required to communicate the impending departure.
- Preferably, notice should come from both the firm and the departing lawyer.
- The departing lawyer should not notify clients of the impending departure before notifying the firm.
- Neither the departing lawyer nor the firm should state or imply that the client is the firm’s or the lawyer’s or take any action that interferes with the client’s right to choose counsel (including a new firm altogether). Client choice remains paramount!
- Given the prior professional relationship, both the departing lawyer and firm may indicate a willingness to continue to represent the client.
- If no remaining lawyers can provide competent representation to the client, or if a conflict at the new firm prohibits the client from following the departing lawyer, the firm and lawyer must work to assist the client to find new counsel.
Thank you Professor Bernabe for the tip.
Tech Competence: it’s been 16 years (!) since Zubulake
The blog was founded on the slogan “Competence Includes Tech Competence.” In January, and following a CLE in which I was fortunate to present with a group of highly competent litigators, I posted Competence & E-Discovery. I think it’s an okay refresher.
Last week, I fell down a rabbit hole of old articles on legal ethics and found an ABA Journal post from 2014: Looking back on Zubulake, 10 years later. To me, it’s an interesting and informative review of the landmark decision, a decision that, really, thrust “tech competence” into the parlance.
Arizona Adopts Regulatory Reform
Last week, I blogged about the Utah Supreme Court’s decision to adopt significant changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the manner in which the provision of legal services is regulated. In short, acknowledging that the rules can serve as a barrier to accessing affordable legal services, the Utah Court issued Standing Order 15 which:
- allows lawyers to share fees with non-lawyers;
- allows lawyers to practice in entities that are owned or managed by non-lawyers; and,
- repeals the rule that prohibits sharing fees with lawyers in other firms.
Update: The day after my post, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted similar reform Per this press release, the “goal is to improve access to justice and to encourage innovation in the delivery of legal services. The work of the task force adopted by the Court will make it possible for more people to access affordable legal services and for more individuals and families to get legal advice and help. These new rules will promote business innovation in providing legal services at affordable prices.” The changes:
- create a process to license paraprofessionals who will be authorized to provide limited legal services in certain types of cases, including going to court with clients;
- repeal the rule that prohibits fee sharing with a lawyer in another firm; and,
- repeal the rule that prohibits non-lawyers from having ownership interests in law firms.