This is a recent course on how to prevent and hopefully avoid bar complaints.
An Update On The Big Law Firms
Comment: the people who run large law firms live in fear of their partners and clients. The decision to cave in to Trump Administration demands is in line with the people I remember at the large law firms. They made those decisions even though they knew acceptance of Trump demands would impair their professional independence. By firing Simpson Thatcher, Microsoft has done what clients should be expected to do, terminate gutless advocates. Remember all decisions by large firms are done out of fear, not principle.
Pennsylvania Suspends Lawyer For Three Years For Converting Funds
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has suspended a lawyer for three years for converting funds from a charity. The lawyer was the treasurer of the organization and wrote numerous checks to herself. No. 3041 Disciplinary Docket No. 3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stein, No. 39 DB 2024, as well. The lawyer repaid the funds and admitted wrongdoing and showed remorse for her actions. The Respondent pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. The Respondent was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
New Courses Offered
This is a new course I taught for Mylawcle.com. It focuses on ethical practices in the practice of corporate law and corporate deals.
This is a course for TRTCLE.com. It discusses basic collection practices for business lawyers and litigators. https://www.trtcle.com/index.php/teleconferences-cle/va/6939/breach-of-contract-and-creditors-rights
Law Firms Fight Back Against Executive Orders
Jenner & Block and Wilmer Hale have won injunctions blocking Trump’s executive orders inhibiting their ability to practice law. The orders are unlikely to survive litigation with the law firms, even with conservative federal judges. Long run what will deter this behavior is the waste of time it will impose on the DOJ. Lawyers and resources have to be diverted to defend the executive orders, which are a total waste of time. The DOJ lawyers will complain and try to delegate it to other people. Eventually, Trump will give up.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/28/g-s1-56890/law-firms-sue-trump
I update this post to note that numerous law firms have come to agreements with the Trump Administration to do pro bono work for certain causes. The agreements are understandable because the firm’s risked the loss of lucrative work and the lawyers risked the loss of security clearances. Before criticizing the law firms, remember that they understand the risks they are facing better than you do. https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firms-executive-order-fe8f38a61cf77c5bb6add1315f5f96f1
APRL Opposes White House’s Effort to Punish Large Law Firms
President Trump has issued executive orders attempting to punish law firms that he feels represented clients adverse to him.
The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (“APRL”) has issued a statement in response to these illegal and inappropriate executive orders which I quote in full:
The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (“APRL”) is the largest organization of lawyers devoted to advising and representing lawyers and law firms. Our association focuses a large part of its efforts on regulations of the legal profession. We believe the independent judgment of members of our profession to represent clients, regardless of whether the representation may be unpopular and regardless of partisan politics, is indispensable to promoting justice in a free society.
Two recent Executive Orders – one dated March 6, 2025, titled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP” and another dated February 25, 2025, titled “Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts,” took aim at lawyers’ ability to effectively represent their clients and sought to interfere with attorney-client relationships between private parties. The March 6 Executive Order directed at Perkins Coie sought to penalize the firm for positions it had taken on behalf of its clients on election issues and its internal policies regarding hiring and promotion. The February 25 Executive Order similarly targeted lawyers at Covington & Burling LLP by terminating security clearances and directing federal agencies to review their contracts with that firm.
Lawyers have a duty to zealously advocate for their clients and often represent clients who may be socially disfavored or even reviled. Lawyers owe their clients a duty of loyalty to advocate for their interests, even if the lawyer or firm does not share the client’s point of view.
Actions such as these Executive Orders impact clients’ choice of counsel and the ability of the firm to provide legal services. It may further chill the efforts of other lawyers and law firms, which threatens all Americans by limiting access to the courts and access to legal services.
Despite naming specific law firms, these orders impact more than the firms mentioned. They threaten the causes that other lawyers or firms might otherwise undertake due to concern that they might face a similar order. We commend Perkins Coie for acting quickly to obtain a court order halting enforcement of the March 6 Executive Order.
APRL encourages all members of the legal profession and the organized bar to speak up loudly against these unprecedented attacks on the profession. It is incumbent on lawyers to fervently protect the attorney-client relationship, the freedom of lawyers to represent clients disfavored by others, and the right of clients to employ lawyers of their choice. Although we sincerely hope that we will not see any other attempts by the executive branch to limit the rights and duties of lawyers and law firms to advocate for their clients or clients’ rights to choose the lawyers they wish to represent them, we call on lawyers and citizens who care about the integrity of American courts to oppose any such orders and to support the justice system, respect the rule of law, and preserve the role of lawyers in advocating for clients.
A previous President of the United States, John Adams, represented British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials. Adams represented those clients—who were accused of murdering American patriots—because he understood that even the most unpopular clients must be represented if justice is to be served. It is lamentable—indeed, it is un-American—for the President to punish lawyers for the political viewpoints of their clients.
Orders of this type are illegal and wrong and must be condemned. Lawyers have to represent everyone, not just those currently in the good graces of the President.
One court has already enjoined portions of the order. https://abovethelaw.com/2025/03/perkins-coie-gets-temporary-restraining-order-against-trumps-punitive-executive-order/
Is Doge legal?
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/24/judge-questions-constitutionality-doge-elon-musk-00205866
Serious question: is DOGE legally authorized? Does Musk have any legal authority to act?
If someone is fired, that person could sue on the ground that it has no legal authority.
I would argue that it should have been authorized by Congress. It wasn’t.
Why does an unelected and unconfirmed Musk have the right to terminate an employee?
New Jersey Permits Out-of-State Referral Fees
New Jersey has issued an opinion allowing lawyers to pay referral fees to lawyers licensed in other states. This is an important development as the practice of law gradually comes to recognize that much law practice is across state lines. Denying a referral fee based on a formality (where the lawyer is licensed) is bad policy.
The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (ACPE or Committee) released Opinion 745 on March 7, 2024. The opinion responded to “inquiries about out-of-state lawyers” who sought “payment of referral fees from New Jersey certified attorneys.” Among other things, the ACPE concluded that “certified lawyers generally may not pay referral fees to out-of-state lawyers” who are not licensed to practice law in New Jersey.
We find that the Court Rules allow certified attorneys to pay referral fees to lawyers in other states even if they are not licensed here. We also note that the payment of referral fees does not raise concerns about the unauthorized practice of law. We therefore vacate Opinion 745.
In Re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. (A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23) (089278). I’m not sure whether Illinois allows such payments of referral fees to out-of-state lawyers.
ARDC Obtains Four Month Suspension For Errors In Criminal Defense
The ARDC Review Board recently recommended a four-month suspension of an attorney for breaches of the standard of care in criminal defense cases. The lawyer failed to file a motion to suppress in one case. Successor counsel filed such a motion and the State’s Attorney dropped the case. The trial of this disciplinary case required the ARDC to retain expert witnesses in criminal defense practice and to have those witnesses testify at a hearing. The court found violations of Rule 1.1 (competence) and Rule 1.5 (excessive fee charged). The Review Board recommended a four-month suspension. The lawyer failed to file a motion to suppress in one matter and failed to do a competent job in an appeal brief in another matter. 2022PR00018.
The respondent recommended that one client plead guilty instead of filing a motion to suppress an inculpatory statement made before he received Miranda warnings. The client was to receive a four-year prison sentence. Eventually, the respondent withdrew, and new counsel filed a motion to suppress. The motion was granted, and the charges were dismissed. The ARDC introduced testimony that failing to file a motion to suppress the inculpatory statement was a breach of the standard of care.
The ARDC used the testimony of an expert witness, a criminal defense lawyer, and had successor counsel for the client whose inculpatory statements were not suppressed also testify as a fact witness.
Discipline For Failure to Have A License
An Illinois lawyer was suspended for one year and until further order of court because he practiced law in Michigan without a license and did not tell his employer the truth. The Hearing Board summarized its findings in this fashion:
The allegations deemed admitted establish that Respondent made false statements to his employer, a Michigan law firm, about the status of his admission to the Michigan bar, by stating he had applied for admission when he had not and that his application had been delayed when he had not actually submitted an application. In addition, Respondent held him himself out to Michigan clients as authorized to practice law when he had not been admitted to practice in Michigan and had been removed from the master roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois due to his failure to complete his Illinois registration. By this conduct, Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c)* of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010) (Counts I and II), and practiced law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010) (Count II).
The lawyer’s failure to participate in the discipline process undoubtedly made his situation much worse. This is an unfortunate story but the discipline is correct in that he was practicing without a license.
2024 PR 00043