LEGAL ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY eJOURNAL

"Ethical Implications of Electronic Communication and Storage of Client Information" Free Download
The Computer & Internet Lawyer, Vol. 33, No. 8, 2016

DREW SIMSHAW, Georgetown Law Institute for Public Representation
Email:

New technologies are transforming commerce in the United States every day. The legal profession is no exception. In fact, in many ways, law offices epitomize the ways in which technology can help make companies more efficient, and even more secure. But with new technologies come new risks that, if not addressed, can threaten a client's information and, consequently, a lawyer's good standing and reputation. The increased utilization of technology by the legal profession raises a multitude of ethical considerations. Lawyers, and indeed their entire offices, should be aware of their state's current ethics rules, as well as recent guidance offered by the ABA and ethics bodies in other jurisdictions.

"Lawyer Speech in the Regulatory State" Free Download
Fordham Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 5, 2016
U of Houston Law Center No. A13

RENEE NEWMAN KNAKE, University of Houston Law Center
Email:

The unusual role lawyer speech plays, both as the embodiment of law and as the fulfillment of professional obligations, sets it apart from that of other government employees. This article critiques two highly controversial split decisions from the United States Supreme Court ascribing minimal First Amendment protection to government lawyer speech — Connick v. Meyer and Garcetti v. Ceballos — and proposes a framework to be applied to the workplace assessment speech of government lawyers when acting as a check on the power of the regulatory state, so long as the speech does not run counter to professional ethics obligations.

"Brazilian Experience on Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption Offences at the National and International Levels" Free Download

WAGNER ROSA DA SILVA, Office of the Comptroller General
Email:

Brazilian experience on preventing and countering corruption is an evolving process. This paper brings an overview of Brazilian legal framework since 1993 up to 2016 on this matter. It focuses on the Anti-Corruption Law (ACL), especially on the liability of legal persons by two ways: by initiative of the Ministry itself, ex officio, when present evidences of violations of the ACL (called Administrative Liability of Legal Persons), or started legal entities through self-disclosure of the ACL’s violations (called Leniency Agreement), where these entities are subject to fines and other punishments, and also have to improve their compliance programs. At the National level, it is possible cooperation with the Brazilian Attorney General Office, and the Federal Public Prosecutors. International Conventions provide a very useful framework, although, in practice, international cooperation in civil and administrative matters need to be improved, significant efforts have been made in this direction.

"On the Absurdity of Model Rule 1.9" Free Download
40 Vermont Law Review 69 (2015)

MICHAEL D. CICCHINI, Independent
Email:

Most lawyers understand they cannot disclose a former client’s confidences or secrets. But ABA Model Rule 1.9 - the rule of confidentiality adopted in nearly every state - actually prohibits an attorney from discussing, writing about, or otherwise disclosing any “information relating to the representation? of the former client. This class of protected information is so broad that it even includes public information (such as the former client’s published appellate court decision) that is easily accessible by anyone on the Internet.

Rule 1.9 is an absurdly broad rule that perpetually bans attorney speech for all purposes and with regard to all information, including information in the public domain. The rule has no rational, underlying policy, and is not even rooted in clients’ actual expectations regarding confidentiality. Rule 1.9 is also unsound in practice, producing some very bizarre and harmful results - often for the very clients the rule was supposedly designed to protect.

Instead, Rule 1.9 should be interpreted to permit an attorney to discuss, write about, or otherwise disclose publicly-available information relating to a former client’s case, provided the attorney does not contradict the former client’s position in that case. This new approach is theoretically sound, easy to apply, and fully aligned with former clients’ actual expectations that their attorney remain loyal, not silent, with regard to public information. This approach also serves other important interests, including the public’s need for critical commentary about the legal system and the individual attorney’s right to free speech.

^top

About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts related to the legal profession. Coverage includes scholarship on the law governing lawyers, as well as theoretical or interdisciplinary approaches to normative questions related to lawyers and the legal profession.

Editor: W. Bradley Wendel, Cornell University

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility eJournal

STEPHEN GILLERS
Vice Dean and Professor of Law, New York University School of Law

DAVID J. LUBAN
Georgetown University Law Center

RONALD DANIEL ROTUNDA
Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University, The Dale E. Fowler School of Law

WILLIAM H. SIMON
Arthur Levitt Professor of Law, Columbia University - Law School, William W. and Gertrude H. Saunders Professor of Law, Stanford University - Stanford Law School

DAVID B. WILKINS
Harvard University - Center on the Legal Profession

CHARLES W. WOLFRAM
Charles Frank Reavis Sr. Professor Emeritus, Cornell Law School