Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Implications of Attorney-Client Counseling and Decision Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Beyond Right and Wrong

  • 971 Accesses

Abstract

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the states’ versions of these rules impose eight principal duties on attorneys representing litigation clients and counseling them regarding settlement alternatives. Conscientious practitioners acting consistent with ordinary settlement negotiation tactics and conventional client development and retention practices may inadvertently overlook the scope and specificity of these ethical duties, resulting in disciplinary proceedings. The pertinent rules and their practical application to interactions with clients, judges, arbitrators and opposing counsel are explained in this chapter. This discussion alerts attorneys to the broad range of ethical duties implicated in attorney- client decision making and, by citing actual disciplinary cases, indicates when an attorney’s conduct may be considered ethically impermissible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Disciplinary Bd. v. Dvorak, 580 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 1998), citing Wolfram, C. (1986). Modern Legal Ethics § 3.4, 109: “the standards of proof in disciplinary proceedings vary, with some courts using the preponderance of the evidence standard, others using the clear and convincing evidence standard, and others using the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt standard.” See also Munneke, G., & Davis, A. (1998). The Standard of Care in Legal Malpractice: Do the Model Rules of Professional Conduct Define It? Journal of the Legal Profession, 22, 44 (“In contrast to malpractice, the disciplinary system is designed to protect the interests of the public and the integrity of the legal profession from the misconduct of lawyers. Because law is a self-regulating profession, the integrity and credibility of all lawyers is impugned by the unsanctioned conduct of any.”)

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, Toledo Bar Ass’n. v. Bridgeforth, 531 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio 1988) (client not harmed by attorney‘s delay).

  3. 3.

    Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 728.

  4. 4.

    Weinberg, D. (2008, Sept. 26). Discipline Is Not Just For Solos And Small Firm Practitioners Anymore. State Bar Talks: New and Novel Ways to Lose Your License. 81st Annual Meeting of the State Bar of California, Program #86.

  5. 5.

    Matamyar, P., & Simmons, K. (2004). Are Women More Ethical Lawyers? An Empirical Study. Florida State University Law Review, 31, 811–812.

  6. 6.

    Ibid.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., 815.

  8. 8.

    Cerro, J. (2008, Sept. 26). Top Problem Areas for Honest Lawyers. State Bar Talks: New and Novel Ways to Lose Your License. 81st Annual Meeting of the State Bar of California, Program #86.

  9. 9.

    State Bar of California. (2008). 2007 Report on the State Bar of California Discipline System, 3.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., 31.

  11. 11.

    Matamyar, P., & Simmons, K. (2004). Are Women More Ethical Lawyers? An Empirical Study. Florida State University Law Review, 31, 833.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmts. 2-4.

  14. 14.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmts. 2, 4.

  15. 15.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmt. 7.

  16. 16.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 7.1 cmt. 2.

  17. 17.

    In re Matson, 512 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1999); In the Matter of Bach, 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631, 642 (Review Dep’t 1991); Matter of Blankenburg, 694 P.2d 195 (Ariz. 1984); In Re Hull, 767 A.2d 197 (Del. 2001); In Re Hiner, Board Case No. 54 (2002), aff’d, 813 A.2d 1140 (Del. 2002).

  18. 18.

    New York City Bar Op. 1995-12 (1995). See Gold v. State Bar, 782 P.2d 264 (Cal. 1989) (attorney may be required to employ interpreter or refer case to another attorney).

  19. 19.

    Butler v. State Bar, 721 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1986).

  20. 20.

    Meighan v. Shore, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 744, 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). See Nichols v. Keller, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

  21. 21.

    In re Riccio, 517 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987); In re Sousa, 915 P.2d 408 (Or. 1996); Friedman v. State Bar, 786 P.2d 359 (Cal. 1990); Matter of Curtis, 908 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1995).

  22. 22.

    Nichols v. Keller, supra n. 20.

  23. 23.

    Nassau County Bar Op. 94-1 (1994). In the Matter of Ward, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 47 (Review Dep’t 1992); Lister v. State Bar, 800 P.2d 1232 (Cal. 1990).

  24. 24.

    Cuyahoga Bar Ass’n v. Britt, 846 N.E.2d 39 (Ohio 2006). In the Matter of Respondent C, 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 439, 451 (Review Dep’t 1991); Board Cases Nos. 44 & 45, 197 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Del., Nov. 25, 1997).

  25. 25.

    In re Fulton, 463 S.E.2d 319 (S.C. 1995). Cuyahoga Bar Ass’n v. Belkin, 748 N.E.2d 21 (Ohio 2001); Matter of Brady, 923 P.2d 836 (Ariz. 1996); Matter of Mulhall, 822 P.2d 947 (Ariz. 1992).

  26. 26.

    Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Schwartz, 660 N.E.2d 422 (Ohio 1996).

  27. 27.

    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick, 705 N.E.2d 667 (Ohio 1999).

  28. 28.

    Vollgraf v. Block, 458 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982); Arizona Ethics Op. No. 99-14 (1999); Florida Ethics Op. 86-5 (Aug. 1, 1986).

  29. 29.

    Matter of Chard, 881 P.2d 1150 (Ariz. 1994); Colorado Bar Ass’n (1997). Use of Conversion Clauses in Contingent Fee Agreements (Formal Op. 100). In re Marriage of Pitulla, 559 N.E.2d 819 (Ill. Ct. App. 1990).

  30. 30.

    Illinois State Bar Ass’n Advisory Op. No. E92-07 (Jan. 22, 1993).

  31. 31.

    See Illinois State Bar Ass’n. Op. 88-11 (1988); Rhode Island Supreme Court Op. 94-70 (September 28, 1994) and Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §31, cmt. c. (2000).

  32. 32.

    Matter of Struthers, 877 P.2d 789 (Ariz. 1994); Matter of Galbasini, 786 P.2d 971 (Ariz. 1990); Columbus Bar Ass’n. v. Flanagan, 674 N.E.2d 681 (Ohio 1997); In the Matter of Ward, supra n. 23, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at 204-205; Matter of Lenaburg, 864 P.2d 1052 (Ariz. 1993); Kaplan v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n., 76 S.W.3d 921 (Ky. 2002).

  33. 33.

    Matter of Tarletz, 789 P.2d 1049 (Ariz. 1990); Matter of Coburn, 832 P.2d 186 (Ariz. 1992); Florida Bar v. Glick, 693 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1997); Toledo Bar Ass’n v. Slack, 725 N.E.2d 63 (Ohio 2000); In re Ring, 464 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1995); Levin v. State Bar, 767 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1989). See Burton v. Estrada, 501 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986).

  34. 34.

    Miller v. Byrne, 916 P.2d 566 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

  35. 35.

    In Re Wolhar, Board Case No. 21 (1992), aff’d, 670 A.2d 1341 (Del. 1995).

  36. 36.

    Levin v. State Bar, supra n. 33.

  37. 37.

    Philadelphia Bar Ass’n Prof’l Guidance Comm., Pennsylvania Ethics Op. 94–25, (1994).

  38. 38.

    See Matter of Wolfram, 174 Ariz. 49, 847 P.2d 94 (Ariz. 1993).

  39. 39.

    Colorado Rules of Prof’l Conduct 1.4, cmt. 1 (“in order to avoid misunderstandings and hence to maintain public confidence in law and lawyers, a lawyer shall fully and promptly inform the client of material developments in the matters being handled for the client”).

  40. 40.

    Arizona Ethics Op. No. 06-07 (2006).

  41. 41.

    Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 669, fn. 37. Lerman cites Burke, R. (1984). “Truth in Lawyering:” An Essay on Lying and Deceit in the Practice of the Law. Arkansas Law Review, 38, to support her controversial findings: “For years we have ‘winked, blinked and nodded’ at blatant, if not outrageous, lying and deception in pleading, negotiating, investigating, testifying and bargaining. In almost every aspect of our professional practice, we have come to accept, in fact to expect, a certain amount of lying and deception.”

  42. 42.

    Ibid., 734.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., 734–735.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., 735.

  45. 45.

    Rosenthal, D. (1974). Lawyer and Client: Who’s in Charge?, cited in Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 700–701.

  46. 46.

    Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 733.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., 733.

  48. 48.

    P.2d 1337 (Ariz. 1995).

  49. 49.

    A.2d 754 (D.C. 1988).

  50. 50.

    Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 691.

  51. 51.

    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hardesty, 687 N.E.2d 417 (Ohio 1997).

  52. 52.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 2.1 cmt. 2.

  53. 53.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 2.1 cmt. 5.

  54. 54.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 2.1 cmt. 5.

  55. 55.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 2.1 cmt. 4.

  56. 56.

    Gantt, L. (2005). More Than Lawyers: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Counseling Clients on Nonlegal Considerations. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 18, 372. Professor Gantt also notes that attorneys should be cautious in providing nonlegal advice, as it may violate the duty of competence under Rule 1.1.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., 375.

  58. 58.

    Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §20 cmt. h (2000), cited in Gantt, L. (2005). More Than Lawyers: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Counseling Clients on Nonlegal Considerations. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 18, 372.

  59. 59.

    Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 735.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., 735.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., 736.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., 736.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., 733–734.

  64. 64.

    See Simon, W. (2007). The Market for Bad Legal Advice: Academic Professional Responsibility Consulting as an Example. Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 07-158; Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 1025984. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1025984. Le Mire, S. & Parker, C. ‘The Client is King’: Ethics in the Relationship between Large Law Firm Lawyers and their Corporate Clients through the Eyes of In-House Counsel. U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 362. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1285323.

  65. 65.

    Quoted in Akron Bar Ass’n v. Miller, 684 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ohio 1997).

  66. 66.

    See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hardesty, supra n. 51.

  67. 67.

    See A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmt. 5.

  68. 68.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 2.1 cmt. 5.

  69. 69.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmt. 5.

  70. 70.

    Id.

  71. 71.

    Matter of Curtis, supra n. 21.

  72. 72.

    Nichols v. Keller, supra n. 20.

  73. 73.

    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hardesty, supra n. 51.

  74. 74.

    Metrick v. Chatz, 639 N.E.2d 198, 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994); Columbus Bar Ass’n v. Flanagan, supra n.33. See Kentucky Bar Ass’n E-404 (June 1998) (“obtaining the full and informed consent of ‘other clients’ could prove problematic given the absence of benefit to such clients and the potential effects of misuse or abuse of such information”).

  75. 75.

    See Delaware Board Case Nos. 44 & 45 (Nov. 25, 1997).

  76. 76.

    Florida Bar v. Vining, 761 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2000).

  77. 77.

    See Matter of Shannon, 876 P.2d 548 (Ariz. 1994).

  78. 78.

    Spiegel, M. (1999). Lawyering and Client Decisionmaking: Informed Consent and the Legal Profession. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 128, 69.

  79. 79.

    Spector v. Mermelstein, 361 F. Supp. 30, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), modified on other grounds, 485 F.2d 662 (1970), cited in Spiegel, M. (1979). Lawyering and Client Decisionmaking: Informed Consent and the Legal Profession. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 128, 68.

  80. 80.

    Spiegel, M. (1979). Lawyering and Client Decisionmaking: Informed Consent and the Legal Profession. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 128, 134.

  81. 81.

    Martyn, S. (1980). Informed Consent in the Practice of Law. George Washington Law Review, 48, 346.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., 348.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., 332.

  84. 84.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.14 cmt. 1. See First Christian Church v. McReynolds, 241 P.2d 135 (Or. 1952).

  85. 85.

    In Re Gordy, 658 A.2d 613, 617 (Del. Ch. 1994), citing Del. Code Ann. tit. 12, §3901.

  86. 86.

    National Institute of Health. (2001). The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America (NIH Publication No. 01-4584). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. See U.S. Public Health Service. (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  87. 87.

    Alzheimer’s Association. (2005). Basics of Alzheimer’s Disease, 8.

  88. 88.

    Hill v. Hill, C.A. No. S-85-9-17C, 1989 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 19 (Jan. 24, 1989).

  89. 89.

    Arizona Ethics Op. No. 91-18 (1991). Connecticut Informal Op. 00-5 (2002).

  90. 90.

    Connecticut Informal Op. 92-26 (1992).

  91. 91.

    Connecticut Informal Op. 98-17 (1998).

  92. 92.

    See Arizona Ethics Op. No. 2001–02.

  93. 93.

    In re Girard, 548 N.E.2d 1051 (Ill. 1989). ABA Formal Op. 95-393 (Apr. 24, 1995).

  94. 94.

    In re Ronell A., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 474. (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

  95. 95.

    In re: Indira, C.A. No. 8901-NC, 1999 Del. Ch. LEXIS 117, at *1 (Del. Ch. June 4, 1999).

  96. 96.

    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Liviola, 763 N.E.2d 588 (Ohio 2002).

  97. 97.

    In re M.R., 638 A.2d 1274 (N.J. 1994).

  98. 98.

    Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Slavens, 586 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio 1992).

  99. 99.

    In re R.S., 213 Cal. Rptr. 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

  100. 100.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.14 cmt. 5.

  101. 101.

    Id.

  102. 102.

    Id.

  103. 103.

    Id.

  104. 104.

    State Bar of Michigan Standing Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, RI-76.

  105. 105.

    ABA Formal Op. 96-404 (Aug. 2, 1996).

  106. 106.

    See Model Rule 1.6, prohibiting the disclosure of “information relating to the representation of a client” except under specified conditions.

  107. 107.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.14 cmt. 8.

  108. 108.

    Arizona Ethics Op. No. 91-18. See Arizona Ethics Op. No. 90-12 and No. 2001–02.

  109. 109.

    Arizona Ethical Rule 1.14(c).

  110. 110.

    Informal Op. 00-5 (2000).

  111. 111.

    Informal Op. 92-26 (1992).

  112. 112.

    ABA Formal Op. 96-404 (Aug. 2, 1996).

  113. 113.

    See C.O.P.R.A.C. [Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, a standing committee of the State Bar of California Board of Governors] Op. 1989-112, L.A. [Los Angeles County Bar Association Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee] Op. 450; S.D. [Legal Ethics Committee of the San Diego County Bar Association] Op. 1978-1.

  114. 114.

    San Diego County Bar Ass’n, Ethics Op. 1978-1, citing EC 7-12.

  115. 115.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.1 cmt. 5.

  116. 116.

    Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz and Schatz, Ribicoff and Kotkin, 717 A.2d 724 (Conn. 1998). See A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 5.1, 5.2.

  117. 117.

    Matter of Bloomfield, 916 P.2d 224 (N.M. 1996).

  118. 118.

    Texas Disciplinary Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.01 cmt. 7.

  119. 119.

    See Hartford v. State Bar, 791 P.2d 598 (Cal. 1990) and Calvert v. State Bar, 819 P.2d 424 (Cal. 1991).

  120. 120.

    In the Matter of Broderick, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 138 (Review Dep’t 1994).

  121. 121.

    New York State Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. No. 469, 1977 WL 15697 (June 7, 1977). See Malone v. Papesh, 627 N.E.2d 1211 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).

  122. 122.

    Matter of Sorid, 597 N.Y.S.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).

  123. 123.

    See Matter of Sexton, 647 N.Y.S.2d 587 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996); Matter of Whitbread, 591 N.Y.S.2d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992).

  124. 124.

    See Fontaine v. Ryan, 849 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Rindner v. Cannon Mills, Inc., 486 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985); Bankers Trust Co. v. Hogan, 589 N.Y.S.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992); Matter of Feeley, 859 P.2d 1329 (Ariz. 1993); Simmons v. City of Philadelphia, 471 A.2d 909 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984).

  125. 125.

    On plaintiff attorney’s duty to refrain from following client’s instructions and to withdraw from the representation, see Cosenza v. Kramer, 200 Cal. Rptr. 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).

  126. 126.

    See Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Anderson, 532 N.E.2d 595 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988); Malone v. Papesh, 627 N.E.2d 1211 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994); In re Caruso, 542 N.E.2d 375, 378 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). Attorney quoted is James “Jamie” Perdigao, who pled guilty in 2008 to bank fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, as described in McCollam, Douglas, (2009, June 1), The Boy Wonder, American Lawyer, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202430856132&The_Boy_Wonder.

  127. 127.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.3 cmt. 3; R. 1.3 cmt. 1; R. 3.2.

  128. 128.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.3 cmt. 3; R. 3.2 cmt. 1.

  129. 129.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.2 cmt. 1.

  130. 130.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.3 cmt. 2.

  131. 131.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.3 cmts. 1, 3.

  132. 132.

    Arizona Ethics Op. No. 90-10 (1990). See Lopez v. Larson, 153 Cal.Rptr. 912 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).

  133. 133.

    See Matter of Sorid, supra n.122; People v. Genchi, 824 P.2d 815 (Colo. 1992); Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Wechsler, No. CV 960566673S, 1997 WL 321575 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 30, 1997).

  134. 134.

    Dayton Bar Ass’n v. Gerren, 853 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio 2006).

  135. 135.

    Laviano v. Statewide Grievance Comm., No. CV 990497413S, 2000 WL 1196427 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 28, 2000).

  136. 136.

    People v. Holmes, 921 P.2d 44 (Colo. 1996).

  137. 137.

    Toledo Bar Ass’n v. McGill, 717 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio 1999).

  138. 138.

    Baranowski v. State Bar, 593 P.2d 613 (Cal. 1979).

  139. 139.

    In re Foley, 604 N.Y.S.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993).

  140. 140.

    See Cuyahoga County Bar Ass’n v. Kelley, 822 N.E.2d 302 (Ohio 2004) (defective bankruptcy schedule); Matter of Feeley, supra n. 124 (allegations in complaint that cannot be substantiated); Matter of Righter, 975 P.2d 343 (N.M. 1999) (calling witnesses with no evidentiary value to client); Matter of Coburn, supra n.33 (lis pendens filed but action did not concern title to real property); Matter of Hanratty, 796 P.2d 112 (N.M. 1990) (attorney disregarded client’s objectives in deciding to convert bankruptcy case to Chapter 11).

  141. 141.

    Hartford v. State Bar, supra n.119, citing Van Sloten v. State Bar, 771 P.2d 1323 (Cal. 1989) and Matthew v. State Bar, 781 P.2d 952 (Cal. 1989).

  142. 142.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 5.1(b), (c).

  143. 143.

    Edwards, H. (1992). The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Profession. Michigan Law Review, 91, 69.

  144. 144.

    Lerman, L. (1990). Lying to Clients. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 707.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., 708.

  146. 146.

    Hartford v. State Bar, supra n.119.

  147. 147.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.2 cmt. 3.

  148. 148.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmts. 3, 4.

  149. 149.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.4 cmt. 3.

  150. 150.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.2 cmt. 2.

  151. 151.

    See State v. Williams, 794 N.E.2d 27 (Ohio 2003); United States v. Morrison, 98 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1279 (1997).

  152. 152.

    Nahhas v. Pac. Greyhound Lines, 13 Cal. Rptr. 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).

  153. 153.

    See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983).

  154. 154.

    Buehman v. Smelker, 68 P.2d 96 (Ariz. 1937).

  155. 155.

    United States v. Morrison, supra n.151.

  156. 156.

    Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986); In re Nugent, 624 A.2d 291 (R.I. 1993); Garn v. Garn, 745 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987); In the Matter of A. Indeglia, 765 A.2d 444 (R.I. 2001); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Summa Corp., 394 A.2d 241 (Del. Ch. 1978); Chiapetti v. Knapp, 314 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974); Sampson v. State Bar, 524 P.2d 139 (Cal. 1974). Cf. Collins v. Bisson Moving & Storage, Inc., 504 S.E.2d 347 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998).

  157. 157.

    In re Grievance Proceeding, 171 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D. Conn. 2001); District of Columbia Ethics Op. 289 (1999).

  158. 158.

    Charles Gruenspan Co., L.P.A. v. Thompson, 2003 Ohio 3641, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS (Cuyahoga).

  159. 159.

    In re Sherburne, 492 N.Y.S.2d 349 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1985); Rhode Island Ethics Op. 90-3 (1990); Silver v. State Bar, 528 P.2d 1157 (Cal. 1974); Bradshaw v. State, 806 A.2d 131 (Del. 2002).

  160. 160.

    See Kentucky Rules of Prof’l Conduct 1.2 cmt. [2].

  161. 161.

    Alvarado Community Hosp. v. Superior Court, 219 Cal. Rptr. 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

  162. 162.

    See Henshall v. Coburn, 169 P. 1014 (Cal. 1917); Ohio Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.5(e)(2).

  163. 163.

    See In re Horton, 813 P.2d 1335, 1342 (Cal. 1991); Carroll v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 654 P.2d 775 (Cal. 1982); People v. Sifford, 617 N.E.2d 499 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993).

  164. 164.

    Gordon v. Town of Esopus, 486 N.Y.S.2d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985).

  165. 165.

    Rhode Island Ethics Op. 96-33 (1996).

  166. 166.

    A.B.A. Formal Op. 06-438 (2006).

  167. 167.

    Libby, E. (2006, July). We’re in This Together: Lawyers Should Heed Client Consent Rules in Reaching Aggregate Settlements. ABA Journal Law News Now.

  168. 168.

    A.B.A. Formal Op. 06-438, supra n. 166.

  169. 169.

    Robinson, W. (2005, April/May). Settlement Tools and Tips. GP/Solo Magazine.

  170. 170.

    See Butler County Bar Ass’n v. Barr, 591 N.E.2d 1200 (Ohio 1992). Cf. In re an Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar, 377 S.E.2d 567 (S.C. 1989).

  171. 171.

    Rule 1.0(m) states: “A legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal judgment directly affecting a party’s interests in a particular matter.”

  172. 172.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3 cmt. 1. Cf. Flynn v. Edmonds, 602 N.E.2d 880, 889 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992).

  173. 173.

    ABA Formal Op. 06-439 (2006) and ABA Formal Op. 93-370 (1993).

  174. 174.

    See Romano Brothers Beverage Co. v. D’Agostino-Yerow Assoc., Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10730, at *57 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (term “tribunal” encompasses “entire judicial process”).

  175. 175.

    Bach v. State Bar, 740 P.2d 414 (Cal. 1987).

  176. 176.

    In the Matter of Jeffers, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 211 (Review Dep’t 1994). See Rhode Island Ethics Op. 97-01 (1997).

  177. 177.

    In Matter of Fee, 898 P.2d 975 (Ariz. 1995).

  178. 178.

    In the Matter of Harney, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 266 (Review Dep’t 1995). Cf. Shaeffer v. State Bar, 160 P.2d 825 (Cal. 1945) (no intent to mislead).

  179. 179.

    In Re Alcorn, 41 P.3d 600 (Ariz. 2002); Hmielewski v. Maricopa County, 960 P.2d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).

  180. 180.

    See Arizona Ethical Rule 3.3 cmt. 2 (duty to maintain client confidences limited by duty of candor).

  181. 181.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 4.1 cmt. 1.

  182. 182.

    In re Zeiger, 692 A.2d 1351 (D.C. 1997); Dime Savings Bank v. Aziz, No. CV95-0248107, 1995 WL 681535, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 7, 1995).

  183. 183.

    No. 320519, 1996 WL 176386, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 29, 1996).

  184. 184.

    F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 981 (1980).

  185. 185.

    P.2d 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947).

  186. 186.

    Dime Savings Bank v. Aziz, supra n. 182., at *1.

  187. 187.

    A.2d 941 (D.C. 1997).

  188. 188.

    A.2d 754 (D.C. 1988).

  189. 189.

    Illinois State Bar Ass’n Op. 95-10 (Jan. 1996).

  190. 190.

    Rhode Island Ethics Op. 93-81 (1993).

  191. 191.

    S.E.2d 174 (S.C. 1978).

  192. 192.

    Cal. Rptr. 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).

  193. 193.

    Cal. Rptr. 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

  194. 194.

    A.B.A. Formal Op. 06-439 (2006); In re Carmick, 48 P.3d 311 (Wash. 2002).

  195. 195.

    In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760, 768 (D.C. 1990).

  196. 196.

    See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448 (1996), quoting In re Shorter, supra n. 195.

  197. 197.

    See Rhode Island Ethics Op. 93-94 (1993); District of Columbia Ethics Op. 336 (2006); Comm. on Prof’l Conduct v. Jones, 509 S.W.2d 294 (Ark. 1974).

  198. 198.

    A.B.A. Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 8.4 cmt. 5.

  199. 199.

    In re Souls, 669 A.2d 532 (R.I. 1996); In re Tidwell, 831 A.2d 953 (D.C. 2003).

  200. 200.

    In re Scanio, 919 A.2d 1137 (D.C. 2007).

  201. 201.

    Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Egbarin, 767 A.2d 732 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).

  202. 202.

    In re Hawn, 917 A.2d 693 (D.C. 2007).

  203. 203.

    In re Bernstein, 774 A.2d 309 (D.C. 2001); In re Hager, 812 A.2d 904 (D.C. 2002).

  204. 204.

    In re Austin, 858 A.2d 959 (D.C. 2004).

  205. 205.

    In re Nugent, 624 A.2d 291 (R.I. 1993); In the Matter of A. Indeglia, 765 A.2d 444 (R.I. 2001).

  206. 206.

    See In re Segall, 509 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ill. 1987).

  207. 207.

    See In re Mason, 522 N.E.2d 1233, 1237 (Ill. 1988).

  208. 208.

    See Brown v. Hammond, 810 F. Supp. 644 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Matter of Ort, 631 A.2d 937 (N.J. 1993).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DecisionSet®, 550 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA

    Randall Kiser

Authors
  1. Randall Kiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall Kiser .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiser, R. (2010). Ethical Implications of Attorney-Client Counseling and Decision Making. In: Beyond Right and Wrong. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03814-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation