Ethical Considerations When “Specially Appearing” for Another Lawyer
By Alara T. Chilton
If you are a litigator, you have likely been in court and heard another lawyer enter her appearance by stating her name, followed by the phrase “specially appearing.” Or, perhaps you have received a telephone call from another lawyer who requests you “specially appear” at a hearing for a client you have never met. Such appearances are not uncommon in California Superior Court in both civil and criminal matters. Read More
All of us have most probably received email communications from opposing counsel in a matter in which counsel’s client is shown as a “cc.” You have been waiting for the opportunity to at long last communicate with the client. You fear that opposing counsel has not communicated your settlement offer to the client and now may be the opportunity to communicate that offer by hitting the “reply all” tab. The settlement proposal is relevant to the substance of the email. However, you are concerned that such a communication may violate Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 which proscribes communicating with a represented party without the consent of opposing counsel.Read More
In recent years, amicus briefing has played an increasingly significant role in appellate practice. This is true, of course, in blockbuster Supreme Court cases like Dobbs (in which 133 amici filed briefs) and Obergefell (in which 149 amici filed briefs). But amicus briefs consume more and more of practitioners’ time in the intermediate appellate courts as well, and occasionally in the trial courts, too. Consider Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) (identifying 257 amicus briefs in same-sex marriage case). See also Allison Orr Larsen, “The Amicus Machine,” 102 Virginia Law Review 1901 (2016) (noting the increased use of amicus briefs, and increased citation to amicus briefs in opinions).Read More
Contact with Represented Persons by a Pro Se Lawyer
By Shelly Skinner
On September 28, 2022, the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 502, which addresses a pro se lawyer’s obligations under ABA Model Rule 4.2 (Communication with Person Represented by Counsel). This rule — often referred to as the skip counsel, no-contact, or anti-contact rule — prohibits a lawyer from communicating “about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or court order.”[1]Read More
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 8.3 provides that “a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.” Despite being adopted by most, if not all, American jurisdictions, Rule 8.3 has not been adopted in California. A California version was considered by the Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct but not adopted as part of the Commission’s recommended set of rules. The drafting team memo sets forth this analysis:Read More
