Search

Lawyer organizations in the United States perform a range of functions. Some are essentially social clubs that provide networking opportunities for lawyers. Others help their members stay up to date [...]

Lawyer misconduct can have devastating consequences for clients. But what is the appropriate regulatory response when lawyers make less serious mistakes? For almost thirty years, jurisdictions have offered some lawyers diversion in lieu of discipline. Diversion is intended to help educate lawyers or treat those with impairments so that they do not reoffend. Yet remarkably little is known about how diversion operates, whether it is used appropriately, and how well it seems to work. This Article addresses these questions. It draws on the limited published data and on interviews with disciplinary regulators in twenty-nine jurisdictions about their use of diversion. The Article reveals wide variations in the extent to which diversion is utilized and the circumstances under which it is used. It also describes significant differences among the jurisdictions in resource allocation and decision-making, which may affect how effectively diversion assists respondent lawyers. The Article makes recommendations for increasing the consistency of decisions to use diversion and improving the efficacy of diversion interventions. In addition, it discusses how diversion could be handled better to provide some satisfaction to complainants. Finally, and importantly, the Article stresses the need for regulators to collect and analyze data to ensure that diversion is adequately protecting the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on Deborah Rhode's critique of the character and fitness inquiry, concluding that Rhode's criticisms of the inquiry were valid, and that the legal profession needs to improve its process of assessing the character and fitness of aspiring lawyers.

Every year, thousands of individual clients are victimized by overreaching lawyers who overcharge clients, refuse to return unearned fees, or steal their money. For more than forty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has considered, and often proposed, client protection measures aimed at protecting clients from overreaching lawyers. These measures include requirements that lawyers use written fee agreements in their dealings with clients and rules relating to fee arbitration, client protection funds, insurance payee notification, and random audits of trust accounts. This Article examines what happened to these ABA recommendations when the states considered them and assesses the current state of client protection in the United States. It reveals that many jurisdictions have declined to adopt these recommendations or have adopted variations that do not adequately protect vulnerable clients. As a result, most states do not require lawyers to use written fee agreements and in most jurisdictions, ordinary clients have no meaningful recourse when fee disputes arise because lawyers are not required to participate in fee arbitration. While all states have established client protection funds to help reimburse clients who are victimized by their lawyers, many clients are not sufficiently compensated due to some funds' low caps on recovery. At the same time, most states have declined to adopt other client protection measures that would help deter and detect lawyer defalcations. Why has this failure to protect ordinary clients occurred? The answer appears to be, in part, that state courts have paid insufficient attention to these issues or deferred to the state bars. The state bars have sometimes opposed these measures or implemented them in ways that inadequately protect the public. States with mandatory state bars--which are sometimes deeply involved in the rulemaking process--appear more likely to adopt fewer client protection measures. The Article suggests that if state courts will not act to better protect ordinary clients, then state legislatures can and should do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on states' handling of the 2020 bar exam and what those responses tell us about the politics of bar admission and terrified of being exposed to COVID-19 during an in-person exam. It mentions supreme courts' institutional relationships with actors also differed and protests over racial inequality occurred in every state, their size and the police response differed among the jurisdictions. It also mentions National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) for state bar examiners.