Sources & Application of Legal Ethics Rules
Facts: Attorney's application contained inaccuracies about their high school education and omitted several residences. Attorney also accumulated between 200 to 400 parking tickets and falsely represented themself as a police officer on at least two occasions. Despite testimonials from relatives, lawyers, and friends affirming their integrity and stability, the committee found these issues significant enough to deny certification.
What is In re DeBartolo?
Facts: Two days before trial the trial court denied a motion for continuance. The Plaintiff tried to discharge their attorney during cross-examination of the first witness of trial. The trial court denied both motions.
What is Ruskin v. Rodgers?
Facts: An attorney licensed to practice in three states, received a "Certificate in Civil Trial Advocacy" from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA). This certificate is earned by compiling extensive trial experience, completing continuing legal education classes, and passing a day-long examination. In addition to listing the three states in which the attorney was licensed to practice, they listed their NBTA certification on their letterhead. The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois filed a complaint against the attorney and argued that they were publicly presenting themself as a certified legal specialist in violation of the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility.
What is the Peel case?
Facts: Attorney bounced a check to a client written on their client trust account, the bank reported it to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The OLR initiated an investigation and examined about five years’ worth of Attorney’s past trust-account transactions. Attorney provided the OLR with incomplete account and client records that sometimes conflicted with each other. Attorney also told the OLR they had not withdrawn cash from the trust account, but the records showed they had made multiple cash withdrawals as well as transferred funds electronically to their business account just before they bounced the check. Despite using Quicken, Attorney's ledgers did not accurately track balances or the dates, amounts, and clients associated with transactions. Records from earlier years showed they disbursed funds on behalf of a particular client, including a check written to the Attorney themself, before depositing funds for that client’s case into the trust account.
What is In The Matter of Constant?
Facts: The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) sought the immediate suspension of the attorney from practicing law in New York. The AGC alleged that the attorney, in their capacity as a lawyer for the former President, made false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public to support claims of widespread voter fraud. These statements included claims about voter fraud in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, which the AGC argued were unsubstantiated and false.
What is In the Matter of Rudolph W. Giuliani?
Facts: Attorney had entered a notice of special appearance for a case but is not a member of the bar of North Carolina. Attorney had previously made 3 other special appearances in this court for unrelated cases. Attorney says there should be an exception because this is a simple action. Attorney also contends that thee has been no showing/lack of competency that would question their ability to handle the six unrelated cases in this court.
What is Masi v. Mystical Entertainment?
Holding: The Attorney was permitted to withdraw as counsel for the defendants due to their refusal to pay fees and the unreasonable difficulty they created in carrying out their representation.
What is Holmes v. Y.J.A Realty Corp.?
Cases distinguishing between permissible and impermissible lawyer solicitation under the First Amendment, holding that while states can ban aggressive, in-person solicitation for financial gain due to risks of fraud and undue influence, they cannot prohibit political or associational solicitation
What are the Ohralik and Primus Cases?
Facts: The defendant hired Attorney to represent him in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding after defendant was unable to pay a business loan. Over ten months, Attorney billed defendant for a total of 1,295.9 hours of legal services. Defendant paid for the initial five months but refused to pay the remaining $85,841.50 billed for the next five months. When the bank's motion for summary judgment was granted, Attorney withdrew from the case, and Defendant hired new counsel, eventually settling the case. Attorney filed an action to collect unpaid attorney fees, and Defendant counterclaimed, asserting the fees were excessive.
What is Robert L. Wheeler, Inc. v. Scott?
Facts: Defendant’s counsel left his notes that were taken by his paralegal and that he had written on, on a table during deposition. By some means Plaintiff’s counsel got a hold of the documents and after realizing what it was proceeded to make copies and use those documents to depose the defendant’s expert witness.
What is Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation?
Facts: Attorney worked as a journalist for a well-known magazine while attending law school at night. The Attorney became notorious when it came to light that they had concocted key facts and falsified sources in over 40 published articles. When confronted with accusations of dishonesty, Attorney undertook elaborate efforts to cover their tracks. In the midst of the ensuing controversy, Attorney applied for licensure with the state bar of New York, but did not accurately disclose the full extent of their journalistic misconduct or their efforts to hinder discovery of their falsehoods.
What is In re Glass?
Holding: An attorney discharged without cause can recover the reasonable value of their services on the basis of quantum meruit, but such recovery is limited to the maximum fee agreed upon in the employment contract.
What is Rosenberg v. Levin?
Facts: Two Arizona lawyers opened a legal clinic to provide low cost services. They ran a newspaper ad that included the prices of their services.
What is Bates v. State Bar of Arizona?
Facts: Attorney represented a client in a divorce and child-custody proceeding. The legal-services agreement governing the attorney-client relationship provided that Attorney would charge a minimum of 15 minutes for tasks completed in furtherance of the client’s case, including phone calls and reviewing and signing documents. The proceeding was adjourned for approximately six months. Before the case resumed, Attorney moved to withdraw because the client had not paid their fees. Attorney's billing record indicated that they had billed the client twice for reviewing the fee agreement, and had made 106 entries for 15-minute increments to complete tasks that could not reasonably require that much time, including for simply reviewing and signing one-page documents.
What is Wyoming State Bar v. Casper?
Facts: Defendant's conviction is dependent on the theory that he conspired with co-defendant and a third defendant. The prosecution sought to introduce the location of the victim’s wallet, which was found in a barrel behind Defendant's house. Defendant revealed the location of the wallet to his attorney. His attorney hired an investigator who retrieved the wallet and it was eventually turned over to police. Defendant's attorney was forced to testify that his client revealed the location of the wallet. Defendant appeals arguing that the communication should have been privileged.
What is People v. Meredith?
Facts: A licensed California attorney, provided legal services in South Carolina without being admitted to practice law in the state. Attorney, operating as the Pacific National Law Center (PNLC), assisted J.H., a South Carolina resident, in attempting to negotiate a modification of his home loan. Despite charging J.H. a fee of $2,995 and assuring him of a loan modification, the Attorney did not secure any modification or provide solutions, leading J.H. to hire another attorney. The Attorney was also found to have engaged in unauthorized practice of law in other states, including Florida and Washington, resulting in disciplinary actions.
What is In the Matter of Naderi?
Reasoning: When a law firm accepts a retainer to conduct a legal proceeding, it implicitly commits to seeing the matter through to its conclusion unless there is justifiable cause to abandon the case or the client consents. The court emphasized that an attorney's obligations to a client do not vanish simply because a case becomes more challenging or less financially rewarding than anticipated. The court noted that withdrawing at this stage would severely prejudice the client, as it would be difficult for her to secure new representation with the trial imminent.
What is Kriegsman v. Kriegsman?
Holding: Targeted mail advertising poses "much less risk of overreaching or undue influence" than in-person contact because the recipient can simply put the letter in a drawer, ignore it, or discard it.
What is Shapero?
Facts: Attorney engaged in activities deemed to be the unauthorized practice of law by preparing legal documents for clients, including a trust and powers of attorney, without being a licensed attorney. Attorney's actions were reported by another attorney, who had previously been involved in legal matters for the clients. The trust created by attorney included provisions that transferred real property into what was claimed to be an irrevocable trust, which raised concerns about the legitimacy and potential harm of these documents. Despite being informed of the unauthorized practice allegations, the attorney continued to assert that they did not need a license to practice law, even claiming to be a sovereign citizen.
What is Comm. of Wyoming State Bar v. Stock?
Facts: An attorney was subpoenaed to produce a knife at a coroner's inquest investigating the death of John W. Warren. The subpoena required the attorney to bring all knives related to Henry LeRoy Gray, who was involved in a fight with Warren that resulted in Warren's death. The Attorney, acting as Gray's attorney, refused to produce the knife, citing the attorney-client privilege, and declined to answer questions about it during the inquest. The coroner and a deputy prosecutor questioned him, but the attorney maintained that producing the knife would violate the confidential relationship between him and his client. Consequently, the attorney was found in contempt of court and sentenced to two days in jail.
What is Washington v. Olwell?
Facts: The Attorney sent a flyer to potential class members containing misleading information, including a false statement that class representatives would be paid for their time. The plaintiff's moved for a restraining order against further communications and sought sanctions against the defendant for the misleading flyer. The trial court issued an order to show cause why the attorney's pro hac vice status should not be revoked.
What is Sheller v. Superior Court?
Facts: Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging that they had been harmed by defendant's products. The plaintiff was indigent and filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. The judge issued an order to an attorney appointing them as the plaintiff's counsel. The attorney filed a motion to vacate the order, asserting that federal courts have no authority to compel an attorney to provide counsel in a civil case to an indigent party without compensation.
What is Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co.?
Decisions that define the constitutional boundaries of attorney advertising and solicitation under the First Amendment. These cases distinguish between different methods of communication and the level of state interest required for regulation.
What are the the Zauderer, Shapero, and Went For It cases?
Facts:Ohio attorney worked as a small-town police chief. Attorney used the state law-enforcement database to run improper searches for people without having legitimate reasons. Because Attorney did not contact or harm the subjects of their searches, the state prosecutor offered a plea deal allowing Attorney to plead guilty to misdemeanors instead of felonies. Attorney had to resign as police chief, surrender their Ohio law-enforcement certification (disqualifying them from working in Ohio law enforcement again), and report their convictions to the Bar Association. In 2018, Attorney overdrew their CTA and admitted to not keeping up with records for said account. In 2017, a retainer was deposited into the CTA and after several weeks most of that money was gone with no significant work completed.
What is Mahoning County Bar Association v. Rauzan?
Holding: Truthful advertising of routine legal services by attorneys is protected commercial speech under the First Amendment, striking down state prohibitions that limited such advertising. The Court found that advertising provides valuable information to consumers about legal costs and availability, helping to improve access to justice, and that such ads are not inherently misleading or detrimental to the legal profession, though states can regulate false or deceptive ads and reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
What is Bates v. State Bar of Arizona?