Tidbits of Ethics

You’re Fired”! – But What About My Legal Fees?. Clients have the absolute right to discharge their lawyers for any reason (subject to court approval when the case is pending before a tribunal). But what about the lawyer’s fees? Most courts follow the principle that if a lawyer is discharged “for cause,” the lawyer is not entitled to compensation. However, if the termination is with “without cause,” the lawyer should receive “quantum meruit,” the reasonable value of the lawyer’s services. Read more …

The NY Court Appeals revisits the champerty doctrine. Last year the New York Court of Appeals held that a purchase by an off-shore shell company of notes that were in default when the payment of the purchase price was contingent on recovery by the shell company violated the New York champerty statute, N.Y. Jud. L. 489, which prohibits the acquisition of notes, securities, and other choses in action “with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action or proceeding thereon.” See Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG, 65 N.E.3d 1253 (N.Y. 2016). Read more …

Unauthorized practice of law – A recent decision of the SC Supreme Court. The SC Supreme Court, on February 22, 2017, found that a group managing HOAs (Community Management Group, “CMG”) committed unauthorized practice of law by representing associations in magistrates court, filing judgments in circuit court, preparing and recording liens, and (4) advertising it could provide the above. Read more …

Self-Assessment Checklist May Help Lawyers in Risk Management.   The practice of law is laden with risk.    Ok … yes … we all know that.   The difficult problem that lawyers face is what they can do to reduce risk without devoting so much time to risk management that it interferes with the practice of law.  Read more …

Certiorari petition filed with the Supreme Court for the revision of NY physical office requirement. On December 12, 2016 three lawyers group filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court for a revision of the New York requirement of physical office for non resident lawyers. Read more …

When does blogging constitute advertising? In Formal Opinion 2016-196, the California State Bar Ethics Committee dealt with the question of when a blog by a lawyer is subject to the ethics rules on advertising. Read more …

Is a certificate of merit always necessary when you sue a law firm? As it well know, in the vast majority jurisdictions, when you sue a professional (lawyers, doctors and others) in negligence, a certificate a merit issued by a professional of the same profession is necessary as a condition to bring the action. SC Code 15-36-100 (B) …  In a recent decision of the federal district court of SC (David Norton, J.) held that where the plaintiffs only sues a business entity and not professionals in their malpractice claim, SC Code 15-36-100 (B) is not applicable.

Is a certificate of merit always necessary when you sue a law firm?

How ethical is participating in fixed-fee referral services like Avvo in light of SC, Ohio, and Pennsylvania ethics opinionsIn Ethics Advisory Opinion 16-06, the SC Ethics Advisory Committee opined that lawyers cannot ethically participate into fixed-fee legal referral services like Avvo. Read more …

Avvo model rejected in three jurisdictions. PA joins SC and OH in finding that lawyer participation in Avvo fixed fee referral program is unethical. Read more …

The non adversity of the Anders Brief … If counsel on appeal on criminal cases consider the appeal frivolous, they must file a brief indicating anything in the record that might arguably support an appeal (Anders v California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)), or they cannot withdraw. It is called the “Anders Brief”, Read more …

The privilege waiver effect of voluntary disclosures to the Government after CISA. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA) in broad terms allows companies to monitor and cyberthreats. In particular, under CISA companies can share with DHS Cybersecurity threat indicator (CTI) and Defensive measures (DM). More on CISA here. Read more …

A rose by any other name is . . . a partner? Non-equity partners formally approved by North Carolina Bar. Opinion, 2015-9 (Holding out Non-Equity Firm Lawyers as “Partners”). The committee advised that a lawyer could hold himself out as partner even if the lawyer was not an owner in the firm Read more …

Attorney-client privilege for mixed business, lobbying, and legal communication. Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled that the attorney-client privilege applies when a communication between an attorney and a client is primary for legal advice. Harrington v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 323 Conn. 1 (2016) [2016 BL 281220] Read more ….

NJ Supreme Court Comm on Attorney Advertising issues notice on how lawyers may advertise “Best Lawyers” award and similar – On May 4, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Attorney Advertising issued a notice to the Bar on “attorney advertising of awards, honors, and accolades that compare a lawyer’s services to other lawyers’ service”. Read more …

CCBE’s recommendations to protect confidentiality from government’s surveillance. On April 28, 2016, the CCBE issued a paper about the standards necessary “to ensure that the essential principles of professional secrecy and legal professional privilege are not undermined by practices undertaken by the state involving the interception of communications and access to lawyers’ data for the purpose of surveillance and/or law enforcement”. Read more …

Physical presence in the practice of law still matters in an age of technology. Even in an era in which technology is enveloping the practice of law physical presence still matters, as shown by two recent decisions from California and New York. See more …

Second Circuit holds it is not unconstitutional to require non-resident attorneys to maintain a physical office in NY to practice law in NY. On April 22, 2016 the Second Circuit ruled that it is not unconstitutional to require non-resident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York in order to practice law in that state’s courts. Schoenefeld v. State of New York, Docket No. 11‐4283‐cv. Read more …

Heads up: Copyright attorneys should look closely at fee-shifting case pending before Supreme Court. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley and Sons the Court is called to resolve a split among Circuits on the appropriate standard for awarding fee-shifting in the Copyright Act. Here the question presented: “What is the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under § 505 of the Copyright Act?”On April 25, 2016 the Court held an oral argument in which interesting issues were raised. See here. Read more …

When a prospective client becomes a risk to a lawyer (read: disqualification risk). Quick reaction – Is having a prospective client a good thing?  Answer: It depends.   A prospective client may become an actual revenue producing client (which is good) but could also create serious risks for the law firm. Here I will focus on one of those risks: disqualifying conflicts of interest. In short, if a person becomes a prospective client, a lawyer will be disqualified from representing a client against the former prospective client when the lawyer has acquired information that could be significantly harmful. Read more …

Choice of Law in Legal Malpractice. We will deal here with choice of law issues in malpractice actions and not with choice of law issues in disciplinary matters. This latter is governed by Model Rule 8.5 (and its state equivalent), which provides that in case of litigation matters, the ethics rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits control (Rule 8.5(b)(1)), while in non litigation matters, the rules of “the jurisdiction in which the lawyer’s conduct occurred” controls, unless “the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction” in which case the rules of that jurisdiction apply (Rule 8.5(b)(2)). These rules could be relevant to identify the law applicable in malpractice actions if you do a governmental analysis (see, e.g., Parker v. Asbestos Processing, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1765 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2015), rejecting the application of Mississippi law based on a Rule 8.5(b)(1) situs of litigation reasoning). The truth is that relevant differences exist among the jurisdictions in conflict of law rules. Some jurisdictions apply the lex loci delicti, while others engage in a governmental interest analysis, sometimes attaching paramount importance to the licensure of the lawyer. Read more …

Dealing with foreign counsel and foreign privilege: Don’t forget that foreign in-house counsel generally do not enjoy the privilege. Documents and other data containing client information are transferred daily across international borders. In-house counsel and outside counsel based in the United States who deal regularly with foreign in house counsel need to be aware of two important aspects of such international communications. Read more …

In-house counsel’s possible trap: Be aware of the “business advice” risk to the privilege. A fundamental difference between in-house counsel and outside counsel is that a central part of the role of in-house counsel is rendering not only legal but business (or other nonlegal) advice; by contrast, advice giving beyond the legal remains a secondary aspect of the role of outside counsel. Involvement of in-house counsel in nonlegal advice poses a fundamental risk to the ACP. One of the central elements of the privilege, as it is conventionally defined, is that the communication must involve “legal advice.” See Tobaccoville USA, Inc. v. McMaster , 387 S.C. 287, 692 S.E.2d526 (2010) (stating the elements of ACP). In-house counsel may often be involved in “dual purpose communications,” which include both business and legal advice. Courts are divided on the test to be used to determine privilege protection for such communications. Most courts apply a “predominant purpose” test but some use a “because of” standard. Under the “because of” standard a court examines the totality of the circumstances to determine whether privilege protection is appropriate. See Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc. , 290 F.R.D. 615 (D. Nev. 2013). Read more …

“Predictive coding” and other TAR as well-accepted methods of document review in federal courts. Four years after Da Silva Moorev. Publicis Groupe., 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), laid the foundation for use of predictive coding or technology assisted review (TAR) in electronic discovery, Judge Peck has issued a new opinion dealing with predictive coding. In this fraud case, he stressed that it is “inappropriate to hold TAR to a higher standard than keywords or manual review. Doing so discourages parties from using TAR for fear of spending more in motion practice than the savings from using TAR for review.” Read more …

Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective December 1, 2015 – scope of discovery and sanctions. I will discuss the most important changes concerning scope of discovery and relevant sanctions. Rule 26 previously defined the scope of discovery broadly to include any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” That language has been replaced by “proportional to the needs of the case” considering various specified factors. Rule 26(b)(1). In addition, Rule 26(c)(1)(B) authorizes courts to issue cost-shifting orders, determining the “allocation of expenses” for certain discovery. Read more …

Attorney suspended for breach of confidentiality in responding to clients’ online criticism. A Colorado attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months on several grounds, including answering to clients’ criticism online by disclosing confidential information. People v. Underhill , 2015 Colo. Discipl. LEXIS 72. Read more …

Lateral movements – providing notice to clients. If a lawyer is changing firms, how should the lawyer and the old firm handle notification to existing clients of the lawyer’s departure? The issue of notification to clients represented by the departing lawyer arises both when departing lawyers move to new firms or open their own practices. Departing lawyers and their firms must recognize that clients do not “belong” to either of them. Clients have the right to choose to have either the departing lawyer or the old firm represent their interests. Thus, both the firm and the departing lawyers have the right and the obligation to notify clients of the departure so that clients can decide whether the old firm, the departing lawyer, or some other attorney will handle the case.   In Formal Opinion #99-414 the ABA committee advised that joint notification by the departing lawyer and the firm was the preferred approach. Read more …

Common interest doctrine enlarged by the Second Circuit to include lenders.  On November 10, 2015, the Second Circuit, reversed the lower court’s denial of a petition to quash a IRS summon. […]. The Second Circuit instead found that “the attorney-client privilege was not waived by the sharing of documents [among which a Ernst & Young tax memo] with a consortium of banks sharing a common legal interest with the appellants and that the summons sought material protected by the work-product doctrine.” Read more …

Temporary multi-jurisdictional practice in transactional matters. The terms “limited admission” or “temporary practice” are often used interchangeably used to refer to situations in which an out-of-state lawyer (“OSL”) – or even a lawyer from another country – practices in a state different from that of his or her admission. […] Here I deal with temporary practice in transactional matters. In these matters the relevant rules are ABA Model Rules 5.5(c)(1) and (c)(4) Read more …

Temporary practice (of US and foreign attorneys) now possible in New York under certain conditions. On December 10th the Court of Appeals approved Part 522 (Foreign In-House Lawyers) and Part 523 (Temporary Practice). Read more …

Lateral movements and conflicts of interest – If a lawyer is changing firms, when does a conflict of interest exist and what can be done about it? When lawyers decide to leave a firm and open their own office, conflict of interest issues should not arise because the new firm will not have existing clients. On the other hand, three types of conflicts can arise when lawyers join an existing firm. First, the lawyer’s old firm may represent a client that is directly adverse to a client of the new firm, either in a litigation or a transactional matter.   If the client of the old firm will remain with that firm, and if the moving lawyer was not involved in the representation of the client of the old firm and did not acquire any confidential information from the client, then no conflict exists.   See ABA Model Rule 1.9(b). In this case the rules do not prohibit either the moving lawyer or the new firm from representing a client of the new firm against the client of the old firm. However, it may be prudent, although not ethically required, for the moving lawyer to avoid involvement in the matter after joining the new firm. Read more …

Lateral movement: When should departing lawyers inform their firms of their plans to leave?  – Lawyers have fiduciary obligations to their firms. A fiduciary has a duty to disclose material information to the principal. However, lawyers may engage in preliminary negotiations with prospective new firms and may make plans to open their own practice without disclosing such activities to their current firm. In the leading case of Meehan v. Shaughness, 535 N.E.2d 1255 (Mass. 1989), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that departing partners owed fiduciary obligations to their remaining partners and that they could be held civilly liable for breach of those obligations. However, the court decided that the withdrawing partners did not breach their fiduciary obligations by making “logistical arrangements” for their new firm (executing a lease, preparing a list of clients they expected to retain after their departure, and arranging for financing based on their expected clientele) because fiduciaries may “plan to compete with the entity to which they owe allegiance,” provided that they do not otherwise breach their fiduciary obligations. Id. at 1264. Read more …

Confidentiality issues in lateral movement and firm’s breakup. This is the first of a series of blogs dealing with issues arising from lawyers’ lateral movement and firm’s breakup. #1 If a lawyer is joining a new firm (either in a straight departure or as a result of a law firm breakup), may the lawyer reveal information to the new firm to do a conflicts check without violating the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality? Read more …

Can I Assign my Legal Malpractice Claim? The short answer as it is often in law is: it depends. There are two recent cases that can help you draw your conclusions.  In Skipper v. Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co., the South Carolina Supreme answered the following question: “Can a legal malpractice claim be assigned between adversaries in litigation in which the alleged malpractice arose”?   The Court’s answer was “No” for reasons of policy, but assignments of legal malpractice claims can occur in many contexts, not all of which violate the public policy concerns expressed in Skipper, which deals with an assignment between adversaries. Read more …

Avoiding loss of your malpractice coverage. Most legal malpractice insurance applications and renewals include a general question similar to the following one asking the applicant to disclose “any circumstance which may result in a claim being made against your firm.”   This question must be answered with care because cases have held that an insurer may rescind a policy if the applicant makes an intentional misrepresentation in answer to this question or even an innocent misrepresentation if the misrepresentation would have a material effect on the insurer’s risk. In addition, rescission of the policy may eliminate coverage for all members of the firm, even those who were innocent both with regard to the misrepresentation and with regard to the circumstances that could result in a claim. Consider recent cases. Read more …

A privilege cannot be a shield and a sword. If you oppose ACP or WP during discovery, you cannot use those same documents at trial, held in August a Mississippi federal court. Mahli, LLC v. Admiral Insurance Co., Civ. A. No. 1:14cv175-KS-MTP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112542 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 25, 2015). Read more …

ABA Opinion 471 (Ethical Obligations of Lawyer to Surrender Papers and Property to which Former Client is Entitled) released. On July 1, 2015 the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released Formal Opinion 471 -“Ethical Obligations of Lawyer to Surrender Papers and Property to which Former Client is Entitled” Read more …

California issues Opinion 2015-193 on lawyers’ ethical duties in handling e-discovery. In Formal Opinion 2015-193 the State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (“California Ethics Committee” or “Committee”) discussed three of the duties applicable to attorneys involved in e-discovery: the duty of competency, the duty to supervise, and the duty of confidentiality. Read more …

WP Protection varies from court to court: the “assist” standard vs. the “because of” standard. Some recent court decisions appear to adopt a narrow view of attorney-work product (WP) protection, limiting the doctrine to material prepared to “assist” in litigation. See e.g.  Irving Oil Ltd. v. ACE INA Ins., No. BCD-CV-09-35, 2015 Me. Super. LEXIS 72, at *7 (Me. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2015). Read more…

Broadrock Gas Services v. AIG internal legal memos may not be protected by attorney client privilege in NYThe federal court for the Southern District of New York recently held that internal legal memos may not be protected by attorney client privilege in NYBroadrock Gas Services, LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 14 cv. 3927 (AJN) (MHD), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26462 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) Read more …

Litigation hold triggered for foreign companies when litigation in the U.S. can reasonably be anticipated. On February 12, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a decision in an IP dispute, deciding on issues raised in anticipation of a discovery dispute conference. Among other issues, the Court clarified that the obligation to preserve evidence arises for a foreign company in the moment in which the company may have reasonably anticipated litigation in the U.S. Read more …

Copying general counsel does not in itself make a document privileged. Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163987 (N.D. Ill.), holding that an email that copies the in-house (“along with several other high level managers”) — and generally asks for “comments” from the recipients, is not in itself privileged as a request of “legal review”, especially when the counsel offers no legal advice in response. Read more …

What effect does a client’s failure to pursue an appeal in an underlying action have on his or her ability to maintain a legal malpractice lawsuit? In Grace v. Law, 2014 WL 5325363 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) the New York Court of Appeals decided an important issue of first impression: “What effect does a client’s failure to pursue an appeal in an underlying action have on his or her ability to maintain a legal malpractice lawsuit?” The Court held that “the failure to appeal bars the legal malpractice action only where the client was likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action.”  Read more …

What is an “aggregate settlement”? The Oregon Supreme Court held that interdependence between claims is required. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that the aggregate settlement rule, ABA Model Rule 1.8(g), applies when interdependence between client claims exists. A settlement offer that aggregates minimum authority obtained from clients individually is not an aggregate settlement. Read more …

Multijurisdictional practice – Some variations under Rule 5.5 ABA Model Rule 5.5 ABA Model Rule 5.5 lists among the exceptions to unauthorized practice that a lawyer does not commit unauthorized practice if he or she represents a client on a temporary basis in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted to practice if the legal services “arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.” The several jurisdictions have adopted slightly modified versions of this rule, all of which focus on the relationship between the lawyer and the practice in the jurisdiction is admitted. Read more …

NY Ethics opinion outlines factors for choice of ethics rules when lawyers are admitted in several jurisdictions. Opinion 1027 (10/16/2014). An attorney admitted in New York and the District of Columbia with offices in both the jurisdictions, dealing with transactional work asked the Committee which “confidentiality, conflicts of interest” and other rules of ethics should govern his conduct. Read more…

Special litigation committee’s report may enjoy ACP or WP protection. In derivative action a special litigation committee’s report may be entitled to attorney-client privilege or work product protection. So the Indiana Supreme Court decided in TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Kesling, 15 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2014). Read more …

Third party beneficiaries named in a will or estate planning can sue in malpractice the decedent’s attorney  – South Carolina S Ct. recognizes claim for legal malpractice by third party beneficiary named in an existing will or read more …

Work Product Protection for Expert Witness’ work – court held that allowing  opponent to see Expert’s Drafts to Evaluate Counsel’s Involvement in the Expert’s Report, Frustrates Foundation of revisions to F.R.Civ.P. 26. On August 25, 2014, In U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Newell, Case No. 12 C 6763, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117734, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2014) plaintiff moved to compel defendants’ expert drafts report based on the argument that they could not benefit from work product protection of those drafts because defendant counsel had cooperated in export’s report. The decision of the Illinois federal court makes so much sense that I guessed the result of plaintiff’s objection before reading the rest of the opinion. The court denied the motion to compel in relation to the expert’s draft.  The court reasoned that the 2010 amendment to Rule 26 “expressly extended that protection to drafts of expert reports and communications between a party’s attorney and an expert witness.”  read more …

How wide is the common interest privilege? A recent NY decision restricts the common interest privilege to a common legal interest.   Schaeffler v U.S., No 13 Civ. 4864 (S.D.N.Y. May 28 2014).

Do you offer to represent current/former employees of your corporate client? You might be soliciting. A lawyer for an entity in litigation, engages in solicitation when the lawyer contacts current or former employees to offer to represent them with payment by the entity.  Rivera v. Lutheran Medical Center, 866 N.Y.S. 2d 520 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 2008), aff’d, 899 N.Y.S. 2d 859 (2d Dep’t 2010).  For a discussion of the case see http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/firm-disqualified-witnesses.html

Delaware Supreme Court recognizes “good cause” exception to attorney-client privilege in derivative litigation. In a derivative action a shareholder of a corporation or member of an LLC or other entity beings suit claiming that the entity has failed to assert rights belonging to the entity to the detriment of its shareholders or members.  Recovery in a derivative action inures to the benefit of the entity.  See FRCP 23.1, SCRCP 23(b)(1). Read more …

Judge turns down as inequitable disqualification motion filed on the verge of trial for facts known long time before – Reeves v. The Town of Cottageville, 2:12-cv-02765-DCN (D.S.C.) Motions to disqualify opposing counsel for conflicts of interest occur often in litigation.  Responses to such motion usually focus on the merits of the conflict allegations.  However, it is important to know that the granting or denial of disqualification motions rests with the sound discretion of the trial court. Read more …

Tuten v. Joel (S.C. Ct.App. August 27, 2014) – terminating a practice does not take a lawyer off the hook. In this malpractice action, client sued both the new lawyer (Glover) and the old lawyer (Joel). Both are held responsible for missing the statute of limitation. The Court of Appeals reminded lawyers that an effective withdrawal requires Read more …

A sensible approach to the “fiduciary duty” and “current client” exceptions to the attorney-client privilege. Imagine that an attorney receives notice from client that a malpractice suit is being considered and that attorney consults with in-house ethics counsel at his or her firm to understand how best to proceed before obtaining consent from the client or terminate representation; client later brings a suit and demands production of the communications between attorney and ethics counsel. Should these communications be privileged?  Some opinions have held that the fiduciary-duty exception to the privilege is applicable. Others have concluded that the current-client exception is applicable. With variation, this exception theorizes that the law firm is ethics counsel’s client along with the outside client by imputation and the two clients have conflicting interests. So what should the attorney do? Consult with ethics counsel and risk disclosure? Withdraw? Seek consent from the client? Retain an outside firm? Each option has obvious pitfalls. Two recent state supreme court decisions held that communications between consulting lawyers and the firm’s in-house counsel were subject to the attorney-client privilege towards the client provided certain conditions were met. RFF Family P’ship, LP v. Burns & Levinson, LLP, 465 Mass. 702 (2013))  and St. Simons Waterfront, LLC v. Hunter, MacLean, Exley & Dunn, P.C. (Ga. S12G1924 July 11, 2013). For example RFF Family P’ship held

 [i]n law, as in architecture, form should follow function, and we prefer a formulation of the attorney-client privilege that encourages attorneys faced with the threat of legal action by a client to seek the legal advice of in-house ethics counsel before deciding whether they must withdraw from the representation to one that would encourage attorneys to withdraw or disclose a poorly understood potential conflict before seeking such advice.

 The Court set forth the prerequisites for attachment of the privilege in this context. First, the law firm must formally designate the attorney or attorneys that will serve as ethics counsel. Next, ethics counsel cannot have worked on the matter at issue or a substantially related matter. Third, the time spent by the attorneys cannot be billed to the client – it should be billed to the firm. Finally, the communications must be made in confidence and kept confidential.

For a more detailed analysis of the issue, you can see Nathan Crystal, Communications with Law Firm In-House Counsel: Does the Privilege Apply?South Carolina Lawyer 11 (September 2013). Read here

Aggregate settlements (Nonclass) are agreements involving multiple clients in which the terms of the settlement are interdependent. They involve complex ethical and practical issues. In addition, such cases often involve a large number of claimants and substantial amounts of money. Ethics advice is both useful and financially justified. For more information see Nathan M. Crystal, “Ethical Issues in Aggregate Settlements of Non-class Action Cases” Part I in South Carolina Lawyer, 8 (May 2012) and Part II, South Carolina Lawyer forthcoming (July 2012.) Read more …

Why ADR.  Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to various procedures other than litigation for resolving disputes. ADR comes in a wide variety of forms and procedures. The most common forms of ADR are arbitration and mediation, but there are many others such as med-arb, summary jury trials, mini-trials, and the like.  Professor Nathan Crystal can provide ADR services (standard or tailored to the needs of the parties) in professional responsibility and contracts matters, both nationally and internationally. For example, he may arbitrate or mediate fee disputes among lawyers, including disputes among firms and departing lawyers and successor counsel. By agreement of the parties and with court approval when required, he is available to resolve conflicts disputes and attorney-client privilege issues in discovery.   Read more …

Contact us for additional information on all these issues.