Five Things California Lawyers Should Know About New Ethics Rules
What to know? The rules don't specifically mention lawyers serving clients in the marijuana industry. In most cases, lawyers can't sleep with their clients. Conflict of interest rules are broader and less case-specific. And more.
May 11, 2018 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
The California Supreme Court on Thursday released the first comprehensive changes to the rulebook in 29 years.
The wait is over, California lawyers. The latest Rules of Professional Conduct have arrived.
After years of drafting—including one forced restart—and almost 14 months of review and rewriting by the California Supreme Court, the high court's seven justices on Thursday released the first comprehensive changes to the rulebook in 29 years. The revised rules, based largely on ABA model rules with heavy seasoning by California laws, go into effect Nov. 1.
By the numbers: The court approved 27 amended rules as a state bar committee submitted them. Justices modified and authorized 42 more. And they rejected entirely one proposed rule on a lawyer's obligations to clients “with diminished capacity.”
The ethical roadmap for California's 250,000 attorneys covers 112 pages. It was approved by all seven justices.
With its hefty size, the revamped rulebook contains plenty of changes for lawyers to love, hate and debate. But two lawyers steeped in the drafting work gave the finished product generally high marks.
“The court did a good job and they did a careful job,” said Richard Zitrin, a legal malpractice and ethics specialist at San Francisco's Zitrin Law Office. “But the court could have taken more of an affirmative role and done an even better job.”
Mark Tuft, a Cooper White & Cooper partner who served on the rules-writing committee, said the changes align California more closely with legal standards across the country. “It's a major step forward. And it offers much greater consumer protection than what we currently have,” Tuft said.
Here are five things lawyers should know about the new rules.
➤➤ Conflict of interest rules are broader and less case-specific. For example, a new definition of what constitutes a legal “matter” covered by conflict disclosure and non-representation requirements is more expansive now. Tuft called the changes “much more conforming and much more inclusive” of how lawyers nationally understand conflicts of interest.
➤➤ Prohibitions on harassment, discrimination and retaliation by lawyers, both in the workplace and in the practice of law, have been expanded. The rule, the subject of intense debate during drafting, requires “all law firm lawyers the responsibility to advocate corrective action to address known harassing or discriminatory conduct by the firm or any of its lawyers or nonlawyer personnel.”
The state bar can now open an investigation into alleged harassment or discrimination without a triggering civil finding by another agency. Lawyers who receive a related disciplinary charge from the bar will be required to notify state and federal workplace-fairness agencies. “It's frankly as broad as about any rule in the country,” Tuft said.
➤➤ The rules don't specifically mention lawyers serving clients in the marijuana industry. The rules-writing committee sent the Supreme Court a proposed rule—Rule 1.2.1—that would allow lawyers to “discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client” so long as they don't counsel that client to break the law. Tuft said the high court sent the rule back about a month ago for more work on some accompanying comments but not the language of the rule itself. Tuft said the rule should be applicable to various topics, such as immigration, where federal and state laws conflict.
➤➤ In most cases, lawyers can't sleep with their clients. This rule has received a lot of public attention. Currently, the rules bar lawyers from having sex with clients if the act is coerced or considered a form of payment for services rendered. The new rule forbids lawyer-client sex unless there was a previous consensual relationship.
➤➤ The court nixed a rule laying out a lawyer's responsibilities in representing clients with “diminished capacities.” The justices did not explain the deletion, although they may have decided language dealing with client confidentiality and privacy may have stepped too far into the Legislature's purview. The California Lawyers Association's trusts and estates section had sought more clarity in the rules for attorneys practicing in this field.
We've posted the new rules below:
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 AllPolsinelli Hires Data Privacy, Tech Transactions Partner From Kirkland & Ellis
Many Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
California-Based Portal Crypto Exchange Faces Delaware Investor Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
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