Ethics Opinions

  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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conducts are available on line at http://www.dcbar… District of Columbia ethics opinions are available at http://www.dcbar…  

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]