By Edward McIntyre

Many jurisdictions adopted a version of ABA Model Rule 1.14 to give guidance when lawyers must confront obligations to a client with diminished decision-making capacity. Our Rules Revision Commission submitted a proposed version of rule 1.14 to the Supreme Court that attempted to reconcile the Model Rule’s approach with unique California obligations, including our obligations of confidentiality.[1] The Court did not adopt proposed rule 1.14. The need for guidance, however, about ethical obligations to clients with diminished capacity remains. The State Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) stepped forward with a recent formal opinion.[2] Read More

A Pending California State Bar Opinion Explains And Gives Guidance On Lawyer Ethical Duties

By Charles Berwanger

Lawyers are often put into the position of knowingly (or even unknowingly) receiving client direction to, for example, include in a contract an illegal provision. Too, lawyers are often directed to enforce such an illegal provision. Read More

By Jessica Park and Andrew Servais

The California State Bar recently seized the client files of Efferin Deans, a man with a 25-year history of impersonating attorneys and two prior convictions of identity theft.[1] On Oct. 27, 2021, a criminal complaint was filed in Los Angeles County naming Efferin Deans and twenty-two aliases that Deans utilized to impersonate a lawyer and appear on the record as a licensed attorney for family law and personal injury cases from January 2019 to September 2021 (See People v. Deans, Los Angeles County Superior Court,Case No: BA499952).  Read More