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.

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 examines when and why lawyer organizations seek to influence law, either by promoting change or opposing it. Topics discussed include activities of lawyer organizations in specific countries in conjunction with international or regional lawyer organizations; and the theoretical perspectives that suggest when lawyer organizations will act, and when they will not.

Many U.S. lawyers "go bare" and represent clients without maintaining malpractice insurance. Efforts to require these lawyers to carry lawyer professional liability (LPL) insurance have mostly foundered, due to bar opposition and concerns about the cost of insurance. As a compromise between protecting the public and protecting lawyers' interests, many states now require lawyers to disclose whether they carry LPL insurance to clients, regulators, or both. This Article draws on survey data from Arizona, Connecticut and New Mexico lawyers that shed light on which lawyers go bare and the reasons why they do so. The Article then looks at states' insurance disclosure requirements and assesses how well they achieve their primary purpose of public protection and their secondary aim of inducing uninsured lawyers to purchase LPL insurance. It also examines whether some of the bar's arguments against disclosure requirements have proved meritorious. The Article then returns to the question, first considered forty years ago, of whether U.S. lawyers should be required to maintain LPL insurance. The evidence suggests that--like lawyers throughout much of the rest of the world--U.S. lawyers should be required to maintain LPL insurance. It explains why the current disclosure rules do not sufficiently alert clients to the risks posed by uninsured lawyers. The Article recommends measures to improve the current insurance disclosure rules, while recognizing the limitations of any disclosure scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the usefulness of character inquiry and fitness requirement process in becoming a lawyer. Topics discussed include significance of psychological research in determining which type of behavior will be problematic in the workplace, a case study based on information gathered during the character and fitness inquiry of lawyers in Connecticut, and protection of the public and the judicial system from problematic lawyers using the process.

The article discusses U.S. legal profession and the so-called "monopoly" on the practice of law, with information on barriers to entry into the legal profession such as legal education costs. The author remarks that the legal profession claims technical and moral superiority over nonlawyer providers of legal services. Efforts to expand legal services offered by nonlawyers such as legal consultants are examined.