PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Professor Powers. Professionalism Roscoe Pound: “... pursuing a...
-
Upload
charlotte-mccormick -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Professor Powers. Professionalism Roscoe Pound: “... pursuing a...
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Professor Powers
Professionalism
Roscoe Pound: “. . . pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service. . .”
Four elements: Intellectual training, complex judgment Trust of clients Clients and public over self-interest Self-regulating
Why does the legal profession have an “image problem”?
A. Lawyers are bad people.
B. Lawyers are people.
C. Lawyers are amoral.
D. Lawyers are inconvenient.
A. Lawyers are bad people
Isn’t that the assumption of a lot of lawyer jokes?
B. Lawyers are people
Sure, some lawyers do bad things. So do lay people.
People notice when lawyers do bad things. Lawyers have more chances to do certain
bad things. Lawyers have many potential ways to get in
trouble.
Areas of concern for attorneys Discipline
Rules Main focus of course, but more is involved
Civil Liability Malpractice Liability to non-clients Not governed by rules, may be related
Criminal liability Subject to same laws everybody else is No immunity because lawyer – and people notice missteps Practice can create additional risks Criminal actions can affect discipline Some statutes specifically for lawyers
C. Lawyers are amoral.
Lawyer as “hired gun” Conflicting duties/loyalties – Preamble –
responsibilities to: Clients The legal system – officer of the court Attorney’s own interests and values
Want to earn a good living – have a good life Be a good person Contribute to society
Inevitable conflicts – What to do? Danger in leaning too much to any one interest
D. Lawyers are inconvenient
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
William Shakespeare
King Henry VI
Can we improve image?
Some of problems inherent Lawyers on both sides – “good guys” and “bad guys” Part of dignity of profession – independence
Some ways to improve Get out (or reform) “bad apples” Good system of rules Better training
What do we mean by better training? Why is Professional Responsibility a required course? What other requirements are there?
Service in the Public Interest
Duty to perform Pro Bono work “Public service” aspect of professionalism
Rule 6.1 {Note: not in Texas Rules}
Not really a rule “Every lawyer has a . . . responsibility . . .” “A lawyer should aspire to render . . .”
Not mandatory – so what’s the point??? “Rule” much more detailed Not enforced through discipline
What is pro bono?
To people of “limited means” To charities, etc., that address needs of
people of “limited means” No fee or substantially reduced fees to
appropriate people or groups Participation in “improving the law.” Should make financial contributions. Can’t become pro bono after the fact.
Mandatory Pro Bono Should Pro Bono be mandatory?
Arguments for? Arguments against?
Will it be mandatory? If so, what kind of system should be adopted?
Buy-out option? Exceptions? Civic volunteers?
Note: Mandatory reporting different from mandatory pro bono Schwarz v. Kogan – Reporting requirement upheld Gives information and encourages pro bono
Texas has voluntary reporting and contributions What about pro bono as a condition of graduation?
Rule 6.2 – Accepting appointments
Lawyer should not avoid appointment except for good cause (not just because unpopular)
Good cause: Would result in violation of rule or law Unreasonable financial burden So repugnant impairs relationship or ability to
represent client. Texas has this rule also.
Note on Fighting Bias and Prejudice
No Model Rule Comment to Rule 8.4
Manifestation of bias and prejudice is violation . . . If prejudicial to the administration of justice.
First Amendment concerns Is rule unnecessary?
No bias? Covered by other rules/laws?
Is this part of professionalism?
Texas Rule 5.08 A lawyer shall not willfully, in trial,
manifest bias or prejudice towards person in proceeding based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability,
age, sex or sexual orientation. Does not apply to
decision whether to represent person, jury selection, confidential communications.
Does not preclude advocacy necessary to address substantive or procedural issues conducted in conformity w/ applicable rules, rulings, and orders.
Rules for lawyers
Who makes the rules? Supreme Court of Texas
Part of judicial branch Bar votes Court promulgates
Legislature Statutes affecting attorneys Public policy issues
Background
1908 Canons 1970 Model Code
Disciplinary Rules – DRs Ethical Considerations – ECs
1983 Model Rules Adopted in some form by most states Adopted in Texas, with variations
Ethics 2000
Other Sources
Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers
Ethics opinions ABA/States Not usually binding
No sanction for “violating” opinion Opinion might persuade court what rule means
Quality Control for Attorneys
Make sure only licensed attorneys practice law Unauthorized practice rules
Make sure licensed attorneys are competent Admission controls
Make sure licensed attorneys stay competent Discipline, CLE, etc.
Controlling admissions
Legal education Bar exam MPRE Character and fitness Note: Texas is integrated bar
See Gov’t Code 81.102 – may not practice law unless member of the bar
Helpful web sites
www.ncbex.org – MPRE www.ble.state.tx.us – Texas admission
requirements www.texasbar.com – Information about state
bar, attorneys, rules www.abanet.org – Information about model
rules, state adoptions www.txethics.org – ethics opinions and more STANLEY
In re Application of Chapman
Applicant applied for admission. First approved RE character and fitness Took and passed bar exam Then report regarding
legal problems. Not allowed to apply
for admission until 1995.
Reasons for decision Track record of dishonesty
Wasn’t this in business matter? Hasn’t he changed? Wasn’t he forthcoming?
Who has burden of proof? Once issue raised, applicant must prove
Why is Supreme Court making decision? What will change between now and 1995? Why is character and fitness part of the admissions
process? Are state bars stricter with admissions than
discipline? Should they be?
In re Hamm
Hamm murdered two college students, execution style in 1974. Sentenced to “life” in prison. Graduated summa cum laude
from Arizona State University. Married 2nd wife.
Paroled in 1992. Graduated from ASU College of Law.
Passed Arizona bar exam. Denied admission by Character and Fitness Committee.
What is appropriate way to consider application?
Factors to consider: Age, experience, etc. at time How recent Reliability of information Seriousness of conduct Applicant’s consideration of law and rules at time Factors underlying conduct Cumulative effect of conduct Evidence of rehabilitation Positive social contributions since conduct Candor in process Materiality of omissions or misrepresentations
Other admission issues: Should a person convicted of murder ever be
admitted to the practice of law? Why is candor so important in the process? Is law school conduct relevant? Note 5 –
Clark – can’t ask about previous counseling – question improper as framed
But must be currently fit If out of state – may have pro hac vice admission
Temporary, often with local counsel Comply with local rules
Some states have provision for reciprocal admission
Rule 8.1
Applicant or lawyer In connection with admission
or a disciplinary matter Shall not
Knowingly make a false statement of material fact Fail to disclose a fact to correct misapprehension,
Or to respond to lawful demand for information, unless protected by 1.6