New York County Lawyers’ Association Ethics Opinion 749

Committee on Professional Ethics Topic: “A lawyer’s ethical duty of technological competence with respect to the duty to protect a client’s confidential information from cybersecurity risk and handling e-discovery when representing clients in a litigation or government investigation”   From the digest: A lawyer’s ethical duty of competence extends to the manner in which he […]

Tags: , , ,

D.C. Bar issues comprehensive guidelines on lawyers’ use of social media (Opinion 370 and 371)

In November 2016, the DC Bar Legal Ethics Committee issued Ethics Opinion 370 (Social Media I) and 371 (Social Media II), which address the use of social media by lawyers for marketing and personal use and for providing legal services. The two opinions aim at increasing awareness of the ethical issues generating from the increasing use […]

Tags: , , ,

California issues Opinion 2015-193 on lawyers’ ethical duties in handling e-discovery

In Formal Opinion 2015-193 the State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (“California Ethics Committee” or “Committee”) discussed three of the duties applicable to attorneys involved in e-discovery: the duty of competency, the duty to supervise, and the duty of confidentiality. The Committee advised that the duty of competency required attorneys […]

Tags: , , , , ,

Lawyers may advise clients to remove not material information from their social media pages as long as an appropriate record is preserved

On January 23, 2015, the Professional Ethics Committee of the Florida Bar issued Florida Proposed Advisory Opinion 14-1 providing guidelines for lawyers advising clients to “clean up” their social media pages not material to litigation. The Committee warns that “What constitutes an ‘unlawful’ obstruction, alteration, destruction, or concealment of evidence is a legal question, outside the scope […]

Tags: ,

Florida Proposed Advisory Opinion 14-1

Professional Ethics Committee of the Florida Bar Topic: “A Florida Bar member has asked the committee regarding the ethical obligations on 4 advising clients to “clean up” their social media pages before litigation is filed to remove 5 embarrassing information that the lawyer believes is not material to the litigation matter” From the opinion: In […]

Tags: , ,

Texas prosecutors shall adopt an “open file” policy for all criminal defense lawyers

Texas Ethic Opinion 646 Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas   Topic: Prosecutor right to require criminal defense lawyers to keep confidential discoverable information contained in the prosecutor’s file. Statement of facts “A district attorney requires criminal defense lawyers to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition to granting lawyers access to […]

Tags: ,

Passive Lawyer Review of Jurors’ Internet presence is ethical. ABA Formal Opinion 466

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently issued an opinion addressing lawyers’ review of jurors’ internet presence distinguishing: (i) a “passive lawyer review” (i.e., a juror’s webpage is publicly available and the juror is unaware of lawyer’s review); (ii) an “active lawyer review” (i.e., the lawyer actually requests access to the juror’s […]

Tags: , ,

A proposed California ethics opinion warns lawyers of their duty of competence and confidentiality in e-discovery

Based on a hypothetical situation in which an attorney – mistakenly believing that the existing clawback agreement is broader than it is and would allow recovery of inadvertently produced material –  agrees with opposing counsel that his client’s database could be searched with search terms that the opposing counsel suggests.  Attorney does not review material […]

Tags: , ,

District of Columbia Bar Opinion 362

Opinion No. 362 of the District of Columbia Bar’s Legal Ethics Committee Topics: Non–lawyer Ownership of Discovery Service Vendors Summary of Committee: “Discovery service vendors, such as e–discovery vendors, cannot both practice law within the District of Columbia and be partially or entirely owned by passive non–lawyer investors consistent with D.C. Rule 5.4(b). This Committee’s […]

Tags: ,