Search

The law concerning judicial disqualification of lawyers acting against former clients currently depends on whether there is a risk of misuse of the former client's confidential information. The House of Lords' decision in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG held that fiduciary obligations do not survive the termination of the retainer. By contrast, in Spincode v Look Software, the Victorian Court of Appeal recognised a fiduciary 'duty of loyalty' following termination of the retainer, which involves a 'negative equitable obligation' enjoining lawyers from acting against a former client in the same or closely related matter. This article argues that this basis exists as a matter of fiduciary doctrine. Drawing on the late Paul Finn's notion of 'misuse liability' as an aspect of the fiduciary principle, a lawyer acting against their former client in the same matter amounts to a misuse of fiduciary position even after the retainer's termination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on important legislative reform of the bankruptcy regulations in force in Spain. Topics include new bankruptcy regulationing comply with this dictum intending to transpose Directive (EU); and preventive restructuring, debt relief and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and debt relief procedures.

Lawyers have positioned themselves at the helm of litigation and policy reform catalyzed by #MeToo. However, lawyers have catastrophically failed to self-regulate with respect to sexual violence. When confronted with fellow lawyers who have sexually abused and harassed their own clients, the attorney discipline system has fallen short of its mission to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession. Despite a robust set of ethical rules that would support strong disciplinary consequences for attorneys who have committed sexual misconduct against their clients, a review of post-#MeToo cases reveals remarkable leniency in the discipline of such attorneys. State disciplinary authorities and courts have consistently prioritized the subjective experience of the offending attorney to the near total exclusion of the client-victim's subjective experience. In justifying lenient sanctions for egregious sexual misconduct, adjudicators have used a proportionality analysis linked to regressive precedent, thus halting any potential progress towards fairer outcomes. Adjudicators have devalued the harm experienced by client-victims of sexual violence by their attorneys. As a result, attorneys have been permitted to prey upon clients--including particularly vulnerable, marginalized, and desperate clients--with relative impunity. This Article argues for the need to take bold action to address attorney-client sexual violence and assure the public that attorney-client sexual exploitation is not tolerated within the profession. Accordingly, the Article advocates for the long-overdue universal adoption of the sexual conflict of interest rule and proposes strict liability and presumptive disbarment for attorney-client sexual contact and presumptive actual suspension for all other attorney-client sexual harassment. The Article also proposes a survivor-centered model of attorney discipline and argues that such a model would bring the discipline system closer to achieving its widely accepted purposes of protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the profession. Finally, the Article makes the perhaps controversial proposal that the legal profession should explore abuse prevention protocols to reduce attorney-client sexual violence, particularly against minors. Given the harm that lawyers have inflicted upon those we purport to help, the profession must be open to new strategies to address and prevent attorney-client sexual violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the public discipline cases in the legal profession, as observed in Minnesota, U.S. in the previous year. It emphasizes the importance of public discipline in deterring misconduct among lawyers and maintaining the profession's ethical standards. It discusses various disciplinary actions taken by the Minnesota Supreme Court, including disbarments, suspensions, and reinstatements.

The article offers an update on attorney discipline, including attorneys and licensed paralegal practitioners, in Utah, as of January 2021. Honorable Patrick W. Corum, Third Judicial District Court, entered an order of suspension, against Steven E. Rush, suspending his license to practice law. Honorable Amber M. Metter, Third Judicial District Court, entered an order of discipline against Don Carlos Stirling, placing him on probation. Cynthia M. Gordon was disbarred from the practice of law.

The article presents a report of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Missouri Bar for calendar year 2019. Also cited are the disciplinary actions against lawyers like Allan H. Bell, Sherrie Lynn Brady, and David Preston Crandall, the office's informal resolution program, the bar's fee dispute resolution program, and the cases filed at the Missouri Supreme Court.

The article lists Missouri lawyers who were meted disciplinary actions, including Henry V. Griffin, Michael Martin Spiegel, and Kristy Lynn Ridings.

Motions to disqualify counsel for conflicts of interest, though frequent, are shrouded in uncertainty. To dispel this uncertainty, the author conducts an empirical study of 1,283 motions for disqualification, providing a breakdown of the variables which influence the courts' decision-making processes in motions for disqualification and some much-needed clarity about the outcomes of these motions. Although the Supreme Court of Canada established requirements for motions to disqualify opposing counsel in MacDonald Estate v Martin and elaborated on its guidance in R v Neil and Canada National Railway Co v McKercher, lower court decisions have been unpredictable. The author's empirical study reveals that uncertain outcomes of disqualification motions present three concerns. First, it is difficult for counsel to predict the likely outcome of a disqualification motion, so a client will not know whether to expend resources on the motion. Second, lawyers and law firms cannot evaluate whether the measures they have implemented to manage potential conflicts in their practices will be sufficient. And third, public trust in the integrity of the justice system may be diminished when courts find that there is a conflict of interest, but elect not to order disqualification. Through this empirical study, the author responds to these concerns and provides practical guidance for law firms and lawyers. The author finds that disqualification motions are more likely to succeed when they are premised on a well-founded concern about disclosure of relevant confidential information or a breach of the duty of loyalty to a current client, rather than general concerns about the administration of justice or unprofessional conduct. The author recommends that firms implement screening measures which comply with all law society guidelines before a transferring lawyer with a potential conflict begins work, and notes that while such measures cannot guarantee a firm will not be disqualified, disqualification in such circumstances is exceedingly rare. Finally, the author concludes that the jurisprudence on disqualification of counsel demonstrates that the courts place high value on trust and confidence in the lawyer-client relationship, and provides little reason to worry about loss of public trust in the administration of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines what work within the legal field can a suspended or disbarred lawyer can engage in without risking a contempt judgment, after the Supreme Court of Missouri suspended the lawyer's license and ordered him to comply in all aspects with Rule 5.27 . Topics discussed include requirements of Rule 5.27, and reports regarding the lawyer's activities received by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC), shortly after the order of suspension.

The article offers information on reinstatement petitions and bar admission character and fitness proceedings. Topics discussed include committed dishonest and even felonious conduct by petitioner, panel findings regarding key, often-decisive issues, such as moral change, remorse, and credibility; and reinstatement after disbarment or lengthy suspension.

The article presents an update on lawyers who had been disciplined by the Utah State Bar. Topics covered include the public reprimand against Rocky C. Crofts for his violation of the Rule 1.15(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, order entered by the Utah Supreme Court which accepts the resignation with discipline pending involving Philip J. Danielson for violations of various rules such as Rule 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law) and the suspension of license of Paul E. Remy.

The article provides an overview of lawyer discipline rulings issued by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2017. Actions taken by court upon a finding of law misconduct are identified. The article also discussed the Per Curiam disbarment opinions of the court, violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and trust account procedural rules in the Indiana Rules of Admission and Discipline and appealable prosecurotial misconduct during trial.

The article argues that lawyers who failed several bar examination before passing it are more likely to be disciplined for ethical violations including lack of diligence. Topics discussed include the primary causes of attorney discipline, ethical rules in client neglect and incompetence cases, evidence linking the failure of entrance examinations and subsequent discipline in other professions, the types of public discipline in Tennessee and permanency of disbarment in Tennessee.

The article focuses on disciplinary actions against the lawyers of Utah. It mentions the suspension of license of Michael R. Power to practice law for a period of eighteen months, public reprimand against Terry R. Spencer for violating Rules 1.4(a) (Communication) and 1.5(a) (Fees) of Utah Rules of Professional Conduct by Utah Supreme Court and disbarment of Jeremy D. Eveland from the practice of law for his violation of Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The article discusses various changes involving attorney discipline in Missouri as of 2019, and it mentions the work of the Missouri Supreme Court, the state's Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC), and the Missouri Bar Advisory Committee. The American Bar Association’s McKay Commission is addressed, along with the disbarment of attorneys and applications for reinstatement to the practice of law. Lawyers' obligations are assessed, along with mental health and substance abuse problems.

The article offers information on the disciplinary actions against lawyers in Utah. Topics discussed include suspension of licenses for practicing law of Bryan T. Adamson, disbarment of James H. Alcala for violating Rules of Professional Conduct and Public Reprimand against Paul Lydolph by the Utah Supreme Court.

The article discusses the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure's Rule 63, a procedural rule that governs the disqualification of a judge who demonstrated a bias, prejudice or a conflict of interest from presiding over an action. The principles of the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct that govern all judges which served as the premise for Rule 63 are discussed. It cites several cases to illustrate the procedural rule.

The article focuses on the sanction analysis in no admonition cases or where the lawyer rejected an admonition by Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC). It mentions sanctions, which include reprimand, reprimand with conditions, probation, stayed suspension with probation, suspension, and disbarment. It also mentions disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property in complies with American Bar Association (ABA).

The article lists the names of 12 attorneys who were either disbarred or had their licenses reinstated by the Missouri. Supreme Court, including Theodore Roy Hoefle, Daniel L. Viets and William Charles West.

The article focuses on goal of public discipline is to protect the public, the legal profession, and the judicial system, and to deter further misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys. It mentions most serious discipline such as disbarment is reserved for the most serious misconduct and misusing his client trust account to further fraudulent schemes. It also mentions attorneys received public reprimands in 2021 and competence that allowed a statute of limitations to run.

The article reflects on attorney discipline summaries in Georgia from December 19, 2014 to March 18, 2015 including disbarment of attorney Rand Jason Csehy Jr. and Robert T. Thompson Jr. and imposition of a Public Reprimand for attorney Jeffrey L. Sakas' neglect of matters involving four clients.

The article discusses the Queensland case Legal Services Commissioner v Walter and analyzes the statutory provisions forbidding non-qualified persons from exercising the legal profession or as lawyers with a focus on the concept of fee or reward in the legal practice in South Australia.