INTRODUCTION: WHAT THIS COURSE IS ABOUT
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
DUTIES LAWYERS OWE CLIENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
II.
The Role of Judgment in Law
Where Laws Governing Lawyers Come From
1.
General Legal Rules
2.
Your Client
3.
Related Parties
4.
Rules of Professional Conduct
5.
Governmental Institutions
Some Common Problems Lawyers Encounter
Five Rules of Survival
Lawyers as Fiduciaries and Agents
The Duty of Care
The Duty of Confidentiality
An Overview of the Implications of Fiduciary Duty and Agency
United States v. 7108 West Grand Avenue, 15 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1994)
Thinking Dynamically and Interactively
Tante v. Herring, 453 S.E.2d 694 (Ga. 1994)
Barbara A v. John G, 145 Cal. App. 3d 369 (1983)
Boundary Issues: When Are You A Lawyer, and When Are You
Just An Ordinary Person?
Main Points To Recall From Part I
DIVISION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN LAWYER AND CLIENT
A.
Authority, Apparent Authority, and Inherent Authority
Restatement §§26-30
B.
Client Calls
Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a); 1.4
Restatement §§19-23
1.
Authority to Settle Civil Matters
In re: Grievance Proceeding, 171 F.Supp.2d 181 (D. Conn. 2001)
Purposivism, Discipline, and Discretion
2.
Apparent Authority and Inherent Authority to Settle Civil Maters
Fennell v. TLB Kent Co., 865 F.2d 498 (2d Cir. 1989)
Agency Cost I: The Importance of Reputational Capital and Conflicts
Between Your Client and Your Reputation
Inherent Agency Power
Performative Utterances and the Practice of Law
Blanton v. Womancare, Inc., 38 Cal. 3d 396 (1985)
Where Does Trouble Come From? Doubling Down I
3.
Authority to Set Transaction Terms
Olfe v. Gordon, 286 N.W. 2d 573 (Wis. 1980)
C.
Lawyer Calls
1.
Criminal Matters
Model Rules 1.2(c); 1.14
Restatement §24
United States v. Theodore Kaczynski, 293 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2001)
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are, I
Appointed Counsel and Client Control
2.
Civil Litigation
Note Regarding the Efficient Conduct of Litigation
Model Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4
Main Points to Recall from Part II
III.
THE DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY
A.
The Duty Described
Model Rule of Professional Conduct §1.6
Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers §§59-67
1.
The duty of confidentiality distinguished from the attorney-client
privilege
Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurants, Inc., 590 F.2d 168 (5th Cir.
1979)
2.
Use of client information for personal benefit
David Welch Co. v. Erskine & Tulley, 250 Cal.Rptr. 339 (1988)
Client Information as Client Property
United States v. O’Hagan, 541 U.S. 642 (1997)
Where Does Trouble Come From? Doubling Down II
3.
Disclosure of Client Information for Personal Benefit
In re Wood, 634 A.2d 1340 (N.H.1993)
4.
Disclosure not for personal benefit
In re Pressly, 628 A.2d 927 (Vt. 1993)
Emily Gould Boutilier, The Woman Who Knew Too Much,
Brown Alumni Magazine, March/April 2004
Where Does Trouble Come From? Politics, Office Politics, and Ethics
5.
Confidentiality With Multiple Clients
A v. B, 158 N.J. 51
It’s Easier to Stay Out Than to Get Out I
6.
Disclosure Authorized by Implication
B.
Exceptions to the Duty
1.
Lawyer Self-Defense
Model Rule 1.6, comment 10
Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
497 F.2d 190 (2d Cir. 1974)
Fist Federal Savings & Loan v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.
110 F.R.D. 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
Ethical Rules and Strategic Behavior I
2.
Physical and Economic Harm
In re Goebel, 703 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 1998)
May You Disclose or Must You Disclose?
D.
Note on Conflicts of Interest
Main Points to Recall from Part III
IV.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Restatemetn §§68-72; 77; 86
A.
Elements
1.
Communications, not facts
Lefcourt v. United States, 125 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1997)
2.
In confidence
Minnesota v. Rhodes, 627 N.W. 2d 24 (MN 2001)
3.
Between an attorney and a client
United States v Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961)
4.
Relating to legal advice
North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (N.D. CA
2003)
Boundary Issues: What Are You Selling? I
In the Matter of Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988)
Boundary Issues: What Are You Selling? Part II
B.
Entities and Privilege
Restatement §73
Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis, 674 N.E. 2d 663 (N.Y. 1996)
Client Information As Client Property II
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2001)
Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir.1970
C.
Government entities and privilege
Restatement §74
In re a Witness Before the Special Grand Jury, 288 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002)
D.
Exceptions to the Privilege
1.
2.
E.
Communications furthering crime or fraud
In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
In The Matter of Michael Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988)
Joint clients
Restatement §75
Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurants, Inc.,
590 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1979)
Waiver
Restatement §§78-80
Model Rule 4.4(b)
1.
Inadvertent disclosure
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 (1999)
2.
Deliberate Disclosure
United States v. Martha Stewart, (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2003)
In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987)
“Common Interest” Exception to Waiver
Restatement §76
United States v. Stepney, 246 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D. CA 2003)
Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874 (2004)
Main Points to Recall From Part Four
D.
V.
C.
REQUIREMENTS OF AND RELATING TO THE DUTY OF CARE
A.
Civil malpractice
Model Rules 1.1; 1.3-1.4
Restatement §§16, 20, 48-49, 50, 52-56
1.
Duty and breach
Nichols v. Keller, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1672 (1993)
The Relationship Between Disciplinary Rules and the Duty of Care
2.
Causation and damages
Viner v. Sweet, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629 (2003)
Nicolet Instrument Corp. v. Lindquist & Vennum,
34 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 1994)
3.
Note on fee disgorgement
Restatement §37
B.
Criminal malpractice
Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995)
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
Main Points to Recall From Part Five
VI.
LIABILITY TO NON-CLIENTS
Restatement §§51, 56-58
A.
Duties to parties related to clients
Mieghan v. Shore, 34 Cal. App. 4th 1025 (1995)
Triangular Duty Relationships
B.
Analysis for third parties
Model Rule 2.3
Restatement §95
Greycas, Inc. v. Proud, 826 F.2d 1560 (7th Cir. 1987)
C.
Fraud
Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194 (1986)
Boundary Issues: What Are You Selling? Part III
D.
Secondary liability: aiding and abetting and conspiracy
Granewich v. Harding, 985 P.2d 788 (Or. 1999)
Model Rule 1.2(d)
United States v. Sarantos, 455 F.2d 877 (2d Cir. 1972)
The Ethics Ostrich
E.
Advising or assisting clients in unlawful activity
Matter of Scionti, 630 N.E. 2d 1358 (Ind. 2001)
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are II
Main Points to Recall From Part Six
VII.
SPECIAL PROBLEMS WITH ENTITY OR CLASS CLIENTS
Model Rule 1.13
Restatement §96
A.
Entity formation
Jesse v. Danforth, 485 N.W.2d 63 (Wis. 1992)
Contracting Around Ethical Default Rules
B.
Conflicts between stakeholders and firms
Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. Glover, 652 N.W. 2d 756 (S.D. 2002)
C.
Dealing With Entity Constituents
Model Rul 1.13(f)-(g)
Perez v. Kirk & Carrigan, 822 S.W. 2d 261 (Tex. 1992)
Must They Ask or Must You Tell?
D.
The Insolvent or Nearly Insolvent Entity
Willner’s Fuel Distribs, Inc. v. Noreen, 882 P. 2d 399 (AK 1994)
E.
The Class Client
Restatement §14, comment f
In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 800 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1986)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)
Main Points to Recall From Part Seven
VIII.
HOW LAWYERS ASSUME DUTIES
Model Rule 1.18
Restatement §§14-15
A.
Loyalty: Confidentiality
1.
Confidences From Parties Related to Clients
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,
580 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1978)
2.
Confidences From Prospective Clients
Who Ultimately Hire Someone Else
Bridge Prods, Inc. v. Quantum Chem. Corp., (N.D. Ill. 1990)
B.
Care
Togstad v. Veseley, Otto, Miller & Keith, 291 N.W.2d 686 (1980)
Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 275 (1995)
Barton v. United States District Court, 410 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2005)
Main Points to Recall From Part Eight
IX.
HOW LAWYERS (OR CLIENTS) TERMINATE DUTIES
Model Rule 1.16
Restatement §§31-33
Hanlin v. Mitchelson, 794 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1986)
Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 814 F. Supp. 414 (D. N.J. 1993)
General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. 4th 1164 (1994)
The Ethical Significance of Client Diversification
Main Points to Recall From Part Nine
X.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A.
Contemporaneous conflicts of interest
Model Rule 1.7
Restatement §§121, 128
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (1992)
Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
936 F. Supp. 697 (D. AZ 1996)
A Brief Conflicts FAQ
North Star Hotels Corp. v. Mid-City Hotel Assocs, 118 F.R.D. 109 (D. MN 1987)
Fiandaca v. Cunningham, 827 F.2d 825 (1st Cir. 1987)
B.
Subsequent conflicts of interest
Model Rule 1.9
Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc., 708 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983)
A Brief Conflicts FAQ
C.
Imputation of Knowledge and Screening
Adams v. Aerojet-General Corp., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1324 (2001)
Model Rules 1.10-1.11
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep. School Dist. No. 11,
662 N.W.2d 125 (2003)
D.
Non-client information and affiliated entities
Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft,
69 Cal. App. 4th 223 (1999)
Main Points to Recall From Part 10(A)-(D)
E.
Client consent
Restatement §122
Klemm v. Superior Court, 75 Cal. App. 3d 893 (1977)
Image Technical Servs, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
820 F. Supp. 1212 (N.D. CA 1993)
Visa USA, Inc. v. First Data Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. CA 2003)
In re: Rite-Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 139 F. Supp. 2d 649 (M.D. PA 2001)
Note on Waivers Involving Entities and Entity Constituents
F.
Transactions with clients
Model Rule 1.8
Beery v. State Bar, 43 Cal. 3d 802 (1987)
Market Baselines, Transaction Costs, and the Economics of Client Transactions
Main Points to Recall From Part 10(E)-(F)
G.
Particular problems involving insurers
Pine Island Farmers Co-Op v. Erstad & Reimer P.A.,
649 N.W. 2d 444 (2002)
Armstrong Cleaners, Inc. v. Eerie Insurance Exchange
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5836 (S.D. Ind. 2005)
Cal. Civ. Code §2860
Main Points to Recall From Part 10(G)
H.
Conflicts in criminal cases
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988)
Main Points to Recall From Part 10(H)
XI.
RELATIONS WITH THIRD PARTIES ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS
A.
Represented persons
Model Rule 4.2
Restatement §§ 99-100; 102
Snider v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1187 (2003)
Model Rule 8.5
Matter of Howes, 940 P.2d 159 (N.M. 1997)
B.
Unrepresented persons
Model Rule 4.3
Restatement §103
Matter of Michelman, 616 N.Y.S.2d 409 (1994)
Main Points to Recall From Part 11
XII.
RELATIONS WITH OTHER LAWYERS
Model Rules 8.3-8.4
In re Himmel, 533 N.E. 2d (Ill. 1988)
XIII.
RELATIONS WITH YOUR FIRM
Restatement §§9, 11,
Model Rules 5.1-5.2 . 8.3
A.
Fiduciary Obligations to a firm
In the Matter of Curran 509 N.W. 2d 429 (Wis. 1994)
Graubard, Mollen, Dannett & Horowitz v. Moskovitz,
629 N.Y.S. 2d 1009 (1995)
Sizing Up Firms: Grabbers and Pushers
Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 2002)
B.
Superior-Subordinate Relations
Kramer v. Nowack, 908 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Pa. (1995)
A Duty to Seek Supervision?
Matter of Howes, 940 P.2d 159 (N.M. 1997)
Main Points to Recall From Part XIII
XIV.
SOME ECONOMICS OF PRACTICE
A.
FEES
Model Rules 1.5; 1.15, 1.16(d)
Restatement §§34-43; 18
Matter of Fordham, 423 Mass. 481 (1996)
Ryan v. Butera, Beausang, Cohen & Brennan, 193 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 1999)
Matter of Warhaftig, 594 A.2d 398 (N.J. 1987)
Cash Flow and the Ethical Significance of Cost Structures
B.
UPL
Model Rule 5.5
Unauthorized Practice Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology, Inc.
Birbower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., v. Superior Court,
17 Cal. 4th 119 (1998)
The Economics of Licensing
Comments of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice
On the Model Definition of the Practice of Law
Your Comparative Advantage and the Thesis of This Course
Main Points to Recall From Part XIV
XV.
XVI.
ETHICS IN ADVOCACY
A.
Client Perjury
Model Rule 3.3
Restatement§120
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986)
People v. Johnson, 62 Cal. App. 4th 608 (1998)
What Do You Know?
B.
Candor Toward the Tribunal
Daniels v. Alander, 844 A.2d 182 (Conn. 2004)
C.
Proper and improper argument
State v. Ray, 659 N.W. 2d 736 (2003)
D.
Handling evidence
Model Rule 3.4
ABA Criminal Justice Standard 4-4.6
People v. Meredith, 29 Cal. 3d 682 (1981)
E.
Discovery Conduct
Washington State Phys Ins. Exchg. & Assoc. v. Fisons Corp.,
858 P.2d 1054 (WA 1993)
Paramount Comms, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. 1994)
SOME PROBLEMS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
Cheney v. U.S. District Court, 124 S. Ct. 1391 (2004)
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Wilkerson
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)