Yearly Archives: 2018 ( Page 5 )

  • Home
  • 2018
  •  ( Page 5 )
Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania District Court Finds No Attorney-Client Privilege for Settlement Lists in Delinquent Tax Case

On February 1, 2018, a Third Circuit panel affirmed a Pennsylvania district court’s ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), concluding that the attorney-client privilege does not shield an attorney’s client and settlement lists from the IRS during an investigation for delinquent taxes.
Read more

Hampshire

New Hampshire Bar Finds Lawyer-Client Bartering is a Business Transaction

A recent opinion published by the New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee finds that legal fee bartering is a business transaction with a client subject to ABA Model Rule 1.8(a) requirements, which apply a reasonable standard and include a thorough discussion with the client, the suggestion that the client seek advice from another lawyer, and written consent.
Read more

Obligation

Ask and You May Receive: The Obligation to Deliver a Client’s File in a Specific Format

A recent opinion from the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics finds that where a former client requests documents regarding his case, a lawyer must take reasonable measures to deliver the documents in a form in which the client can access them; however, the lawyer may charge the reasonable fees and expenses incurred in delivering the documents in the form requested. Obligation
Read more

Conflict waivers

Conflicts of Interest? New York Advises on Law School Clinic and Nonprofit Collaboration

The New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics, recently advised that a legal clinic pursuing claims on behalf of indigent clients is not “associated” with its co-counsel, a nonprofit legal services organization, for the purposes of imputing conflicts of interest.
Read more

Brightline

The ABA Draws a Brightline for Judges Conducting Independent Factual Research

The American Bar Association’s latest formal opinion prohibits judges from conducting independent research on adjudicative facts unless the information is subject to judicial notice. However, judges are permitted to use the Internet to search for general contextual information and to research legislative facts. Brightline
Read more