Law on Rice

I’m studying for my upcoming law school final in ethics (a/k/a professional responsibility or “PR”), a class I’m required to take in order to graduate. Even though I’m required to take professional responsibility, I think it’s teaching me a lot about what it means to be a lawyer.

Having been a corporate tool for so long, I was steeped in the morals of the marketplace. The lawyer’s (or the law shool’s) notion of fiduciary duties is refreshing and a little humbling.

Anyway, professional responsibility is a sprawling body of laws, duties, and judicial gloss that I–like so many law students before me–am struggling to get my arms around. Here’s what I’ve got so far: the 5Cs.

(1) Properly identifying the CLIENT. This is an outset problem that seems pretty simple until you realize that almost anyone who reasonably believes you are their lawyer has probably just become your pro bono client. The problem gets even worse with entity representation and closely held corporations.

(2) COMPLY with the bodies of law and the RPCs. That is, avoid becoming a primary perpetrator of crimes or a tortfeasor. And don’t let your client enlist you in the act secondarily. Withdraw if necessary. Also, watch your candor duties to the tribunal, to third parties, and issues of perjury.

(3) Keep CONFIDENCES. That is to say that any (yes “any”) information disclosed must be kept confidential–no gossiping. There are some mandatory and permissive exceptions under the RPCs, and there is always the attorney client privilege to consider too.

(4) Avoid CONFLICTS. This is a complex one that I’m still studying. It starts with fiduciary duties and with RPC 1.7.

(5) Be COMPETENT. Under this heading I’m including duties like communication, diligence, etc. I’m also lumping in malpractice. Oh yeah, reasonable fees and solicitation probably fit pretty well in here too.

I think that’s a pretty good way to keep most of it straight. Let me know what you think.

This semester I’m taking professional responsibilty. Overall, it’s been an interesting exploration into the profession. It’s been down right eye opening.

For example, we’re currently debating where the dividing line between a client’s authority and the lawyer’s authority should be. Having been a former client, I expected that the ethics rules would have given me a great deal of control. I expected a client would get to draw the line broadly.

In some ways, the market gives clients a lot of control because a client can always fire her lawyer if the lawyer doesn’t give the client as much as she wants. That said, the ethics rules only give clients the right to control the objectives, not the means of the representation. True, the lawyer has to “consult” the client about the means, but this is left almost completely undefined. Much of the stuff I’ve read so far seems to do a surprising amount of hand wringing over the notion of giving clients too much control.

I don’t find any of this shocking, but it does explain why many clients complain that their lawyers don’t communicate with them enough. It’s baked right into the rules!

There’s a really important patent case on point that I’ll put up on Coderights tonight.

I don’t know anything about the Pakistani legal system. But I know enough to know that Pakistan’s lawyers and the public believe in the rule of law.

They believe strongly enough to take to the streets. I think it’s because they know how important the rule of law is to democracy.

Sometimes I spend so much time studying the noodling details of the law, that I lose the bigger picture. I lose the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Interestingly, in the same Wall Street Journal, I read a letter from Terry L. Anderson of Bozeman’s Political Economy Research Center. He was pointing out that one major cause of poverty on American reservations is a failure of the Department of the Interior to create a strong rule of law–especially for property rights. Right here in America.

This is kind of a silly post, but as I was riding the bus home tonight, I noticed a sign on a building that said the “Walthew Building.” That was interesting to me because I just got my latest Bar News this morning. Therein was an ad that caught my attention:

The building with the sign is this one (that’s the Smith Tower in the background):

The address for the firm is pretty close to this on Google Maps. Is anyone familiar with it? Is it the firm’s building?

A few months ago, I was really hot on Len Tillem’s KGO podcasts. I still love listening to them as a I ride the No. 14 to downtown Seattle, but now I’m on to something new (and even more famous): Gerry Spence’s blog.

Gerry Spence is  a legendary trial lawyer who lives a few states to the east of me. I love his blog because the passion he puts behind his posts are remind me of why I went to law school. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but I agree with his approach.

Oh, for the record, I still dislike the term “blawg,” but I feel like I’ll be spitting in the wind if I try to use something else.