Non-lawyers employees might still be called “officers” or “principals”. Texas Ethics Opinion 642 to be reconsidered

On October 15, 2014, the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas communicated its decision to reconsider Opinion 642, according to which law firms cannot use “officer” or “principal” in job title for non-lawyers. The Committee Chair said that: “At this point I do not know what the outcome of the reconsideration will […]


Pennsylvania Bar Association Formal Opinion 2014-200

The Pennsylvania Bar Association issued a formal opinion on lawyers’ response to clients’ negative review. Conclusion from the opinion: “a lawyer cannot reveal client confidential information in a response to a client’s negative online review absent the client’s informed consent.” Pennsylvania ethics opinions available at https://www.pabar… (members only) Relevant Law: Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.6 “Confidentiality […]

Tags: ,

South Carolina State Bar Ethics, Advisory Opinion 14-01

Ethics Advisory Committee Topic: Fees and Duty of Confidentiality – Matching Services The Committee was asked to opine on the ethical propriety of following arrangement: potential client pays a fee to a group XYZ which acts as an attorney matching service for family court matters. XYZ pays $800 to attorney to consult with the client, and attend one […]

Tags: , , ,

The bar Association of San Francisco Opinion 2014-1

The bar Association of San Francisco Ethics Committee Topic: Response to Clients’ Online Review Digest from the opinion “An attorney is not ethically barred from responding generally to an online review by a former client where the former client’s matter has concluded.  However, the duty of confidentiality prevents the attorney from disclosing confidential information about […]

Tags: ,

Texas Ethics Opinion 627

Professional Ethics Committee For the State Bar of Texas Topics: “Under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, what are the responsibilities of a law firm for preserving or disposing of files of a former client after the lawyer who represented the former client leaves the firm?”   Conclusion of the Committee: “…First, confidential information of […]

Tags: ,

Texas Ethics Opinion 622

Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas  Topics: “Under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, may a lawyer obtain information regarding a potential new client’s payment history from a database containing information supplied by other lawyers on the payment history of their clients, structure an engagement agreement to provide legal services to […]

Tags: , ,

South Carolina State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 12-03

Ethics Advisory Committee Topic: Lawyers’ participation in “Questions and Answers” websites is allowed with some precautions In Ethics Advisory Opinion 12-03, the Ethics Advisory Committee opined whether lawyer may answer legal questions as an “expert” on a topical website for compensation where the website disclaims the attorney-client privilege and cautions users against reliance on the […]


State Bar of California Formal Opinion 2012-184

State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion 2012-184 Topic: Virtual Law Office Digest of the Committee: “As it pertains to the use of technology, the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct do not impose greater or different duties upon a VLO practitioner operating in the […]

Tags: , , , ,

Los Angeles County Bar Association Opinion 2012-525

Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee Topic: Ethical Duties of Lawyers in Connection with Adverse Comments Published by a Former Client Conclusion from the opinion: “The Committee concludes that the attorney may publicly respond to such comments as long as the rebuttal: (1) does not disclose any confidential information; (2) does not injure the former client […]

Tags: , ,

1 2 3 4 5