Judges’ Social or Close Personal Relationships with Lawyers or Parties as Grounds for Disqualification or Disclosure
Under what circumstances must judges disqualify themselves or make disclosures based on personal relationships?
Tagged: #legalethics #ethics
The Duty to Communicate — A Two Way Street
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4, effective now for a year, has made explicit some duties never stated in former Rule 3-500.
Wu v. O’Gara Coach Co., LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1069
Should the court disqualify a lawyer and the lawyer’s firm based on the lawyer’s previous engagement as an adversary’s executive and playbook knowledge.
Monster Energy v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781 – Supreme Court of California (July 11, 2019)
Can a lawyer’s signature on a settlement agreement under the notation that the lawyer approved the written agreement as to form and content evidence the lawyer’s intent to be bound by the agreement’s confidentiality provisions that extended to both the parties and their lawyers?
The New Ethics Rule 1.5.1 Regarding Fee Divisions Among Lawyers
The California Rule of Professional Conduct [CRPC] Rule 1.5.1, took effect November 1, 2018, and regulates fee sharing by lawyers who are not in the same law firm. Rule 1.5.1 includes pure “referral” fees, as well as where the attorneys share work on the case.
