News & Insights

The courts and state bars around the country play an important role in protecting clients and the public from dishonest lawyers. However, just as with anything else, it is possible to overdo it. A recent case from Kansas provides an illustration.

A recent case out of the Virgin Islands provides a rare example of one court refusing to summarily impose reciprocal discipline on a lawyer because the disciplining court did not afford the lawyer sufficient due process. This month’s column discusses this interesting case and its outcome.

Although Arizona was the first jurisdiction to eliminate Rule 5.4 to allow legal practices to experiment with alternative business models, the idea did not start there. It started in California. Perhaps you are wondering where California is on this issue? This month’s legal ethics column discusses why California rejected the very reforms that its bar recommended.

The November legal ethics column highlights the potential impact of the August 2022 ruling by Judge Linda Parker from the Eastern District of Michigan sanctioning nine attorneys who brought 2020 election challenges in Michigan. According to Judge Parker’s ruling, these lawyers have landed in ethical hot water regarding Rule 11. And, while her decision is on appeal, it’s worth noting the implications that the ruling could have for all litigators.