Law Commons^™

Ethical Limitations On Lawyer-To-Lawyer Online Consultations Regarding Pending Cases, Robert Derner

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This comment explains how and when lawyer-to-lawyer consultations are permitted in the online world. In all lawyer-to-lawyer consultations, but especially with the online variety, a lawyer must avoid violating the principle of confidentiality when consulting other lawyers about client matters. While in-person lawyer-to-lawyer consultations have been commonplace in the legal profession for decades, the rise of listservs and social media networks has caused many lawyers to seek advice from colleagues on the Internet.

In considering online lawyer-to-lawyer consultations, there are two major issues. Firstly, a lawyer must determine whether the jurisdiction in which he or she practices permits online lawyer-to-lawyer …

Attorney–Client Privilege In Bad Faith Insurance Claims: The Cedell Presumption And A Necessary National Resolution, Klien Hilliard

Seattle University Law Review

Attorney–client privilege is one of the most important aspects of our legal system. It is one of the oldest privileges in American law and is codified both at the national and state level. Applying to both individual persons and corporations, this expanded privilege covers a wide breadth of clients. However, this broad privilege can sometimes become blurred in relationships between the corporation and the individuals it serves. Specifically, insurance companies and those they cover have complex relationships, as the insurer possesses a quasi-fiduciary relationship in relation to the insured. This type of relationship requires that the insurer act in good …

Attorney-Client Privilege And The Kovel Doctrine: Should Wisconsin Extend The Privilege To Communications With Third-Party Consultants?

Marquette Law Review

In today’s marketplace, the way that corporations conduct business is drastically changing, and lawyers are increasingly relying on third-party consultants, such as accountants or investment bankers, to facilitate them in providing accurate legal advice to corporate clients. Despite this reliance, whether the attorney–client privilege protects the communications between an attorney and a third-party consultant is often questioned. In United States v. Kovel, the Second Circuit found that the attorney–client privilege extended to communications between an attorney and a third-party consultant who acted as an interpreter. However, both federal and state courts have since split over the proper scope of the …

An Analysis Of Austin Lawyers Guild V. Securus Technologies, Inc.: The Constitutional And Ethical Implications Of Using Illegally Recorded Attorney–Client Telephone Conversations As Derivative Evidence, Christina Santos

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

For the justice system to operate effectively, privileged communications between an attorney and his or her client should be afforded the utmost and strictest protections. Intrusion by law enforcement upon these communications severely diminishes the confidence and candor needed in the attorney-client relationship. Although the United States Supreme Court recognizes prosecutorial immunity and generally leaves prosecutorial discipline to state bar authorities, the Court has long held that the attorney-client privilege is needed for attorneys to effectively advocate on behalf of their clients.

Austin Lawyers Guild v. Securus Technologies, Inc., a civil class-action lawsuit, is currently pending before the United …

Use Of Expunged Records In Attorney-Disciplinary Proceedings, Roland D. Ramos

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re State Bar of Texas should be modified. In In re State Bar of Texas, the Court allowed the use of a criminal defendant’s expunged records in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding against his attorney. Allowing the use of expunged records for any purpose violates Texas law. For example, under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, it is an offense to knowingly release or use expunged records for any reason, unless a court’s final expunction order permits the expunged records to be retained for future use or if a defendant waives his or …

Conflicting Loyalties Facing In-House Counsel: Ethical Care And Feeding Of The Ravenous Multi-Headed Client The Fifth Annual Symposium On Legal Malpractice And Professional Responsibility., William E. Matthews, Robert M. Hoffman, Daniel C. Scott

St. Mary's Law Journal

Because of corporate scandals that shook the business world, legislative, corporate, and public fingers immediately pointed at corporate attorneys for allowing such egregious conduct to occur. In 1983, the American Bar Association (ABA) passed Model Rule 1.13, which promoted the entity theory. Under the entity theory, the organization is the in-house counsel’s only client; and the in-house counsel’s primary duty is to act in the best interest of the organization. Whether the issue is deciding to make an executive compensation disclosure in a proxy statement, taking on a dual role within the organization, acting in compliance with heightened professional responsibility …

Exploring Disqualification Of Counsel In Texas: A Balancing Of Competing Interests The Fifth Annual Symposium On Legal Malpractice And Professional Responsibility., Rebecca Simmons, Manuel C. Maltos

St. Mary's Law Journal

Uncertainty over conduct which results in disqualification can be costly and the laws relating to disqualification may be widely known but their application is difficult. Rigid application of irrebuttable presumptions and imputation of knowledge may result in disqualification of a client’s chosen counsel. Even if an attorney succeeds in opposing a motion to disqualify, the resulting costs and delay may damage the attorney-client relationship more than if the attorney had simply declined the representation. Motions to disqualify usually arise from conflicts of interest involving former clients. The law of disqualification, in this instance, is well developed and largely based on …

Shoot Out At The Not-O.K. Corral Or Privileged Client Communications - Lost And Found In Texas., Walter W. Steele Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas’s solutions to inadvertently disclosed privileged material are unworkable. Confidentiality of client information is a bedrock of the legal profession. Nonetheless, some confidential information invariably leaks out. The most common leak occurs when a lawyer inadvertently includes privileged material in boxes of documents produced in response to a legitimate discovery request. After the opposing lawyer finds the “hot documents” in the box, the problems begin. The Texas Supreme Court adopted what amounts to the reasonable precautions test in Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals. The cornerstone of the Granada holding is the involuntary nature of the production of the …

Has The Fog Cleared - Attorney Work Product And The Attorney-Client Privilege: Texas's Complete Transition Into Full Protection Of Attorney Work In The Corporate Context., Fred A. Simpson

St. Mary's Law Journal

The following discussion in this Article fills the gaps in the substantive rules surrounding the attorney work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege, thereby encouraging practitioners to utilize these tools more freely. Initially, the attorney-client privilege contemplated application only to individuals. As the rule developed in the United States, however, the scope of the privilege broadened until it included corporations. Since 1982, Texas has provided for the attorney-client privilege in Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 503.149. Notably, the Rule defined client in such a way as to include a corporation. Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine developed much …

Attorney Referral For Medical Treatment: A Wolf In Disguise., Martin J. Phipps

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas attorneys should be obligated to disclose whether they referred their client to a pre-selected physician. Plaintiff attorneys, however, have been allowed to withhold this information from the court arguing the information is privileged. The practice of using a pre-selected physician is unethical and unfairly prejudicial. If the attorney and physician have an agreement, the attorney is likely to send numerous clients to that specific physician in order to receive a discount. The physician in turn is likely to recommend medically unnecessary procedures in order to inflate money damages. Therefore, in order to prevent potential abuse between the attorney-physician relationship, …

The Impending Wave Of Legal Malpractice Litigation - Predictions, Analysis, And Proposals For Change., Gary N. Schumann, Scott B. Herlihy

St. Mary's Law Journal

Attorneys tend to be viewed antithetically, at once both greedy and manipulative, but also respected and admired. Given this odd mixture of respect and disdain, attorneys are fortunate to have generally avoided being targets as potential defendants. Nevertheless, circumstances in Texas have changed, creating a new legal climate wherein attorneys may soon become defendants of choice. Attorneys in Texas are at a significantly greater risk of becoming the subject of a malpractice suit than they were in the past. Yet, simply because statistics indicate an increase in the number of malpractice claims, this does not mean more malpractice is being …

Demystifying The Extraordinary Writ: Substantive And Procedural Requirements For The Issuance Of Mandamus., Charles W. Rocky Rhodes

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Walker v. Packer, the Texas Supreme Court attempted to harmonize Texas jurisprudence regarding the standards for issuing a writ of mandamus. The Walker court initially reiterated the maxim that mandamus will issue “only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.” The Court defined “clear abuse of discretion” as “a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” The Court subsequently reaffirmed the “fundamental tenant” of mandamus practice stating the extraordinary writ is not …