Keep Calm and Carry On: Ethics in a Time of Stress
Guiding clients through these troubled waters to land, at least relatively safely, is one of the many rewards of a fulfilling law practice.
March 16, 2020 at 12:57 PM
6 minute read
For many of us, our practices take us into the lives of our clients at times of great stress. Whether it is criminal trouble, professional licensing trouble, matrimonial trouble or business trouble, legal trouble is painful and all-consuming. Guiding clients through these troubled waters to land, at least relatively safely, is one of the many rewards of a fulfilling law practice.
One thing I have learned is that, for both the lawyer and the client, the beginning of a high-stakes representation is the hardest. In the very first meeting, your client is being eaten up by the uncertainty of the future: she wants to know what will happen, what is the worst case scenario, what is the best case scenario, how will you avoid the former and achieve the latter. And the truth is, in the beginning, you do not know. And you tell your client to slow down, take things one step at a time, have a little faith, a little patience and with a little luck things will fall into place as best as they can.
Another thing I have learned from my many years of representing clients at a low point in their lives is that this is the time when other things can go wrong—a bad fall, a fender-bender, a missed deadline at work—because your client is distracted by their anxiety. The distraction created by stress is a danger in itself, one that we all need to be aware of now. As all of us are going through the unprecedented stress of the Covid-19 pandemic, with the fear and uncertainty of what lies ahead, we need to focus on taking care of what is in our control in our lives and our practices, especially solo practitioners who lack the infrastructure of a big firm to support them. Here are five suggestions for getting through without creating ethical issues in your practices:
- If you are a solo: get a buddy. Find another solo in your specialty who can cover for you or help you get continuances if you need to be quarantined. This is a time when the friendships you have made in bar associations and on listservs will be instrumental in helping you find the assistance you need.
- Check in with your IT support to make sure that you are set to work securely at home. Do not use an unsecured internet connection; make sure that your VPN is on. Also, just as you have stocked up on food, ensure that your home office is stocked with any supplies you need, including printer paper, etc.
- Calendar and client management. Spend a few minutes looking at your client list and your calendar at least twice a week to make sure nothing falls through the cracks. Are there matters on your calendar that are likely to be disrupted by the pandemic? If so, let your clients know sooner, rather than later, that this might be the case. This is also a good time to reach out to your clients and let them know that you are available to assist them as they are dealing with the stress and consequences of this unprecedented and historical event.
- Many CLE courses have been cancelled and are only being conducted through webinars. The April 30 deadline is approaching and you need to get your CLE credits. I predict that the court will liberalize the restriction on distance learning, but right now only six of the required 12 credits, including two ethics credits, may be taken online.
- While distracted by the difficulties and uncertainties of the current situation, be extra mindful in your attention to details and be especially careful sending emails. Hitting the send button can be the most dangerous thing you do each day! Every sent email is gone forever and can be forwarded endlessly. This might be a good time to turn off the auto-complete function in your email program.
In fact, in recognition of some of the risks created by emails, the Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently issued Formal Opinion 2020-100 on "Ethical Considerations Relating to Email Communications Involving Opposing Counsel and Clients." The opinion discusses the risks involved in putting your client on the cc or bcc line when you are in communication with others involved in a matter. The opinion discusses the risks that arise from the inclusion of a client on an email chain, including the risk that the client will respond and reveal confidential information and the risk that the opposing attorney takes if he includes the client in a response email. There is authority to support a concern that the opposing attorney risks violating the "no contact" rule by responding to all. See Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 ("In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented."). My advice on this is NEVER include a client on a cc or bcc line with any third party who potentially vitiates the attorney-client privilege, especially an adversary. (For in-house counsel, this is especially tricky, as I discussed in an earlier column's analysis of Bousamra v. Excela Health, 178 A. 3d 1079 (2018). Any email that your client needs to see can be forwarded in a private email discussion.
There is no minimizing or ignoring the effect this pandemic is having on our profession, our society and our planet. As lawyers, we must protect our clients, our practices and ourselves. I close by reminding everyone that, when the stress is overwhelming, help is a phone call away. Reach out to the folks at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers at 888-999-1941. They are there every day all day.
Working together, supporting each other, reaching out for help and being extra cautious—we will get through this trying time. And wash your hands!
Ellen C. Brotman, of Brotman Law in Philadelphia, represents individuals before licensing boards, providing effective, caring and efficient assistance. She has served as an assistant federal defender in Philadelphia and practiced in small, medium and large firms with a focus on criminal defense, appellate advocacy, professional responsibility and ethics.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Forgotten Ballot: Expanding Voting Access for Incarcerated Populations
5 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250