| LEO Num | Topics | Summary | Date |
ABA-502
|
| “Prose lawyers represent themselves as ‘a client,’ [and thus must comply with Rule 4.2’s ex parte communication limitations] and direct pro se lawyer-to represented person communication in such circumstances can result in a substantial risk of overreaching, disruption of the represented person’s client-lawyer relationship, and acquisition of uncounselled disclosures.” A dissent suggests revising Rule 4.2, noting that state courts in Connecticut and Kansas, and a Texas LEO took the opposite position. | 9/28/2022 |
1899
|
| Clients and their lawyers can agree on a reasonable “conversion clause” indicating how the lawyer will be compensated if the client terminates a fixed fee agreement without cause (rather than relying just on a quantum meruit process that requires a terminated lawyer’s legal action against the former client). Unlike the scenario with “conversion clauses” in contingent fee arrangements, the fixed fee setting has no expected recovery, and a “conversion clause” cannot result in the lawyer receiving more than the fixed fee itself. As long as the arrangement is reasonable and fully explained to the client, such a “conversion clause” might use “benchmarks” based on the “amount of work” done at certain stages of a fixed fee representation. | 1/6/2023 |
1898
|
| Given cryptocurrency’s “extreme fluctuation” and other factors, there is “a great deal of risk undertaken by the lawyer and/or the client” when dealing with cryptocurrency. Lawyers may accept cryptocurrency as an advance fee for legal services, as long as the arrangement satisfies Virginia Rule 1.8(a)’s requirements, and is “agreed to by the client ... after being informed of its implications [including the risk of cryptocurrency being lost or stolen, the absence of FDIC insurance, etc.] and given the opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel, all of which is confi1med in writing.” Lawyer’s acceptance of cryptocurrency as payment for an earned fee is not a “business transaction” with the lawyer governed by Virginia Rule l.8(a)). | 9/19/2022 |
ABA-503
|
| Given the “inclusive nature and norms of...group electronic communications,” a lawyer may ethically use the “Reply All” option upon receiving an email from a represented party’s lawyer who copies her client- because “the sending lawyer is essentially inviting a reply all response.” The sending lawyer should have the burden of avoiding such responses by not copying her client on the email. However, “reply all” responses must cover “only the specific topics in the initial email,” and not include any “unrelated topics.” The sending lawyer can avoid this implied consent presumption by an explicit oral or written communication. The presumption does not apply to a “traditional letter printed on paper and mailed,” because in that situation “a different set of norms currently exists.” | 11/2/2022 |
1897
|
| Lawyers do not violate Virginia Rule 4.2 when responding with “Reply All” to an email from another lawyer who has copied his or her client on the email. The sending lawyer’s copying of her client amounts to an “implied consent to a reply-all response.” “[T]he onus should be on the sending lawyer to blind copy all recipients, or separately forward the email to the client, if they do not want a ‘reply-all’ conversation.” However, any “reply must not exceed the scope of the email to which the lawyer is responding.” | 9/19/2022 |
1893
|
| Minor children pursue lawsuits through a "next friend" (typically the child's parent or guardian) acting in the child's name. A lawyer representing such a "next friend" takes direction from the "next friend," although the lawyer represents the child rather than the "next friend." A parent or other such "next friend" should "frequently reassess potential conflict throughout the representation" - because (among other things) the lawyer may desire to protect the parent's lien from medical expenses incurred on the child's behalf, which will be paid out of the child's recovery against the tortfeasor. A conflict might arise if the parent wishes to settle a child's claim for an amount that will satisfy such a lien, but might not maximize the child's recovery. If the "next friend" is the child's parent or guardian, the lawyer "may presume" that the "next friend" is acting in the child's best interest, unless the lawyer "has reason to believe" otherwise. If the "next friend" is not the child's parent or guardian, such a presumption does not exist. If a conflict arises, the lawyer cannot obtain the necessary consent from the child or from the conflicted "next friend." In that situation, the lawyer may seek a guardian ad !item's appointment or judicial approval of an infant settlement - and the lawyer "must advise the parent to seek independent counsel." In other situations involving a conflict, the lawyer may petition the court to appoint a substitute "next friend." | 4/12/2023 |