Tuesday, September 11, 2018, Seattle, WA

Presented by WSBA CLE

The 20th Annual Ethics, Professionalism and Civility Workshop

WSBA-CLE

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

CHAPTER TWO

AFTERNOON SESSION

September 2018

Kirsten Schimpff Washington State Bar Association

Phone: (206) 443-9722 kirstens@wsba.org

Judge Ronald Cox (Ret.)

Phone: (206) 418-9225

Wendy Walter McCarthy Holthus, LLP

Phone: (206) 596-4844 wwalter@mccarthyholthus.com

Amanda Lee Law Office of Amanda Lee

Phone: (206) 419-9303 amanda@amandaleelaw.com

KIRSTEN SCHIMPFF is Associate Director of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), and was previously an Assistant General Counsel in the WSBA’s Office of General Counsel. Prior to coming to the WSBA, she taught legal writing at Seattle University School of Law, served as an Assistant United States Attorney, worked in private practice, and clerked for a U.S. District Court judge. She serves from time to time as an Adjunct Professor at Seattle University School of Law, teaching courses in Professional Responsibility and legal writing. She was admitted to the Washington State Bar in 2001.

WENDY WALTER is a Managing Partner at McCarthy Holthus LLP, where she leads the firm’s multi-state Judicial Foreclosure Practice Group. She is also a current board member to a national association comprised of default mortgage firms, USFN. Prior to joining the firm, she was Managing Attorney at RCO Legal, and prior to that was First Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Washington Mutual, where her practice focused on mortgage servicing. She also served as a Tax Associate at Deloitte & Touch, LLP. Wendy was admitted to the Washington State Bar in 2003 and to the Oregon State Bar in 2009.

Biographies continued on next page

2-1

WSBA-CLE

Biographies cont.

JUDGE RONALD E. COX (RET.) served on the Washington State Court of Appeals from January 1995 to his retirement in June 2018. He was elected to an open seat on the court. During his tenure on the court, he served as presiding chief judge of the entire court. He also served a separate tenure as chief judge of Division One, which is headquartered in Seattle.

Prior to joining the court, Judge Cox was a partner in the law firm now known as K&L Gates LLP. During that time, he served on the Board of Trustees of the King County Bar Association. He also is a former president of the King County Bar Foundation, which raises funds for legal services to the poor and scholarships for minority law students. His former service also includes work on bar association committees dealing with delay reduction in trial courts, judicial evaluations, and ways to improve information about judges that is provided to voters.

Judge Cox joins the Seattle office of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service in October 2018. He will also resume part-time teaching at the University of Washington School of Law.

Judge Cox is a graduate of the University of Washington School of Law and the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. He is also a graduate of Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii.

AMANDA LEE divides her time between representing clients in white-collar criminal matters and federal felony prosecutions, and serving as the Interim Executive Director of the Public Defender Association, a non-profit organization working to reform the criminal justice system. Ms. Lee also assists corporations and academic institutions with internal investigations and compliance matters, and she counsels clients in connection with ethical issues.

Ms. Lee serves as a Hearing Officer for the WSBA Disciplinary system. Previously, she served on the WSBA Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, the WSBA Disciplinary Board, and the Clemency & Pardons Board. She has taught ethics at the UW School of Law and regularly teaches ethics in CLE seminars and for public defender agencies. Ms. Lee is a past president of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and currently serves on WACDL’s ethics hotline. Ms. Lee also serves on the Washington Forensic Investigations Council and the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions Committee. Ms. Lee is consistently named to the Super Lawyers list as one of the top attorneys in Washington State, and she is listed in Best Lawyers in America. She received her B.S. and J.D. from the University of Washington.

2-2

WSBA-CLE

First Afternoon Session

1. Lousy Lawyer has had it with his client, Pain Inthebutt. Pain has all themoney in the world, but he keeps a tight leash on Lousy’s billing, insists on authorizing any time spent on his many litigation matters, and is never grateful for the amazing results Lousy manages to pull off time and again. Lousy decides he deserves an undisclosed bonus from Pain, who keeps ample funds in trust at all times. Lousy transfers $5,000 out of trust he does not think he has earned, but does not remember (due to his crummy trust account management) that he in fact earned those funds and more in earlier months.

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Lousy Lawyer attempted to violate RPC 1.5 (fees)?

b. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Lousy Lawyer attempted to violate RPC 1.15 (trustaccounts)?

See: RPC 1.5, 1.15, 8.4(a).

2. Carla Counsel represents Donny Deserving in defense of a criminal case inwhich Carla is convinced that Donny is being unjustly accused of a crime that he did not commit. Prior to the trial, Carla gives what Carla believes to be wholly false information to the media in an attempt to sway the court of public opinion, and the judge, in Donny’s favor. At trial, Carla puts on testimony from Wanda Witness that Carla believes to be wholly false. It turns out, however, that both the information that Carla gave to the media and the testimony given by Wanda were true.

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Carla attempted to violate RPC 3.6 (pretrialpublicity)?

b. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Carla attempted to violate RPC 3.3(a) (offering falseevidence) or 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation)?

See: RPC 3.3(a), 8.4(a), (c).

3. Marsha Malpractice previously represented Dan Dupe in Matter A.Thereafter, Dupe tells Marsha that he believes she committed malpractice while handling Matter A and that he wants $5,000 to settle the matter. Knowing that she is not acting consistently with RPC 1.8(h), Marsha sends Dan a check for $5,000 and a release which she asks him to sign immediately and without either advising Dan in writing of the desirability of seeking counsel or giving Dan a reasonable opportunity to do so. In point of fact, however, Dan does not simply sign the release and cash the check but first consults counsel.

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Marsha attempted to violate RPC 1.8 (settlement ofclaims)?

#57564871_v2 2-3

b. What if, instead, Marsha verbally told Dan about the desirability of seeking consult counsel but intentionally did not tell Dan in writing about the desirability of seeking counsel because she hoped Dan would fail to do so?

See: RPC 1.8(h), 8.4(a).

4. Mike Marketer, Esq., loves new clients. When MegaCorp offers Mike a particularly lucrative piece of work, Mike says “yes” over the phone even though he knows that he needs, but probably will not get, informed consent from a former client of his firm due to a conflict under RPC 1.9. Mike then decides not to seek the consent of the former client in the hopes that the former client won’t recognize the conflict since the firm has since changed names and since Mike was not involved in the prior representation. Mike therefore goes ahead and sends an engagement letter to MegaCorp which makes no reference to any need for conflicts waivers. MegaCorp signs the engagement letter and returns it. A day later, and before he has done any legal work for MegaCorp, Mike thinks better of the matter and decides to tell MegaCorp that he will not accept the matter.

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Mike attempted to violate RPC 1.9 (former client conflicts)?

See: RPC 1.9, 8.4(a).

5. Felicity Frustrated is a lawyer who is representing herself in litigation with Sam Stoneface. Upset with the fact that her settlement offers are ignored, and believing that Sam’s lawyer is either not passing on her offers to Sam or has given Sam unrealistic expectations about what to expect in the litigation, Felicity calls Sam directly to discuss settling the case. In that call, Felicity explains her view of things and why Sam should take her offer. Sam responds that he will accept Felicity’s terms and then adds that as it happens, he had fired his lawyer earlier the same week and at that point is unrepresented.

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Mike attempted to violate RPC 4.2 (communications with represented parties)?

See: RPC 4.2, 8.4(a).

#57564871_v2

2-4

Second Afternoon Session

1. Lois Washington-Lawyer knows that as a matter of law, it is a crime inWashington to record a telephone conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent but that it is not a crime in Oregon to record a telephone conversation if at least one party consents. Lois therefore decides to travel to Oregon in order to have and record a phone conversation with someone in Oregon that, Lois believes, will benefit her client. (Assume no communication with represented parties issues under Washington RPC 4.2.)

a. If Lois has the conversation from Oregon and if the person on the other endof the call is also in Oregon, would Lois be subject to discipline for violatingWashington RPC 8.4(c), which prohibits “conduct involving dishonesty,fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”?

b. In light of Washington RPC 8.5, would it make a difference if Lois’s phoneconversation concerned a matter pending before a Washington tribunal?

See: RPC 8.4(c), 8.5.

2. Carla and Jessica are getting divorced. Carla retains Sara Surprisedlawyerto represent her. Carla and Jessica continue to live together (during the divorce) because they have a 10-year old child together and they want to make the transition easier on the child. Carla plans to move out once the divorce is finalized and they plan thereafter to sell the house. There is a computer in the living room that their child uses for homework and that Carla and Jessica use as well. One day, when no one was home, Carla installs spyware on the computer; in the following days, Carla learns information about Jessica’s travel plans and how Jessica is spending funds online. Carla also notices that Jessica has forgotten to log out of Gmail and so looks at Jessica’s emails as well.

While Sara, Carla’s lawyer, is getting ready to take Jessica’s deposition, Carla informs Sara that Carla believes Jessica is wasting their assets. The next day, Sara receives copies of Jessica’s emails in an unmarked brown envelope.

a. May Sara use the oral information she learned from Carla at Jessica’sdeposition if she does not use the emails themselves?

b. May Sara use the emails themselves?

c. What are Sara’s options with regard to staying in or withdrawing from thecase?

d. If Sara stays in the case, will she be obligated to produce the emails shereceived in discovery?

e. If Sara withdraws must Sara keep the emails she received in the brownenvelope?

See: RPC 1.1, 1.6(a) - (c), 4.4(b), 8.4(a) - (d).

#57564871_v2 2-5

3. Samuel Superlawyer represents disgruntled Emily Employee, who believes she suffered significant racial and sexual discrimination while an employee at Big Bad and Bold Toy Store. At the first meeting between Samuel and Emily, she tells him:

I am so upset at Big Bad and Bold Toys – they treated me so unfairly over the years. Settlement is off the table. This has to go to trial – I want everyone to know about how bad they are. I’ve already begun blogging about it and I want you to do so too. I don’t want you to cooperate with their counsel at all. No set-overs, no courtesies. We set depositions on our schedule. I want you to file every motion you can file – motions to compel, motions to dismiss, etc. And I want you to threaten sanctions.

a. To what extent may, must or must not Samuel do as Emily requests?

b. To what extent may, must or must not Samuel tell Emily what he will or will not do at the outset rather than waiting to see if he can talk her out of taking otherwise impermissible positions?

See: RPC 1.2(a), (b), 2.1, 4.4(a).

4. Daria Defenseattorney represents Tony, a member of a notorious local gang. Tony is accused (along with others) of participating in a murder of a former gang member in a drug deal gone bad. In their initial meeting, Tony is adamant that he wasn’t involved and claims that he was down in Portland at his nephew’s bar mitzvah when his “good friend” was killed.

a. Daria’s investigator learns that there was no bar mitzvah in Portland and that Tony was in Seattle all weekend. In addition, GPS of Tony’s phone puts the phone near the location where the body was found. Tony claims there is a conspiracy against him and tells Daria that he plans to testify he was at a religious service in Seattle for much of the day. In fact, there is a synagogue near the location where the body was found and it was open for prayers all day. Daria’s investigator determines that no one who was at the synagogue can recall seeing Tony but that no one can say for certain that he was not there. Must, may or must not Daria allow Tony to take the stand to testify?

b. Assume that in Tony’s case, substantive Washington law would permit the death penalty and that Daria, an exceptionally reasonable lawyer, is wholly and reasonably convinced that any reasonable jury will convict Tony of the murder and that the only way to have any chance save Tony from the death penalty is to concede that Tony was the killer and argue that he lacked sufficient mens rea to be guilty of first degree murder. Assuming as well that Tony is sufficiently competent to stand trial, how if at all, does this change the analysis as to whether Daria may concede that Tony was the killer and limit the defense to mens rea issues?

#57564871_v2

2-6

c. None of the above happened. Instead, Daria is contacted by the districtattorney one month before trial to inform her of a new witness, Jimmy – a“jailhouse snitch”, who was celled with Tony at some point in the past yearand who claims that Tony made numerous inculpatory statements to himabout his involvement in the murder. The district attorney intends to callJimmy as a witness at trial. Daria immediately remembers Jimmy – sherepresented him three years before on an unrelated domestic violencemisdemeanor. The case was dismissed on the day of trial after the victimfailed to show up. Does Daria have a conflict of interest? If so, are there anyoptions for her to remain in part but not all of the case?

See: RPC 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1(a).

#57564871_v2 2-7

Copyright © 2018 Holland & Knight LLP. All Rights Reserved

20th Annual Ethics, Professionalism & Civility Workshop

September 11, 2018

Washington State Bar Association

Introduction & Panelists

» Welcome and introduction˗ Hypothetical based CLE. Questions encouraged˗ Materials / RPCs

» Program Co-Chairs:˗ David Elkanich˗ Peter Jarvis

» Program Faculty:˗ Judge Ronald Cox. (Ret.)˗ Douglas Ende˗ Amanda Lee˗ Kirsten Schimpff˗ Wendy Walter

2-8

Holland & Knight

/ I

-------------------------------

Holland & Knight

First Afternoon Session

1. Lousy Lawyer has had it with his client, Pain Inthebutt. Pain has all the money in the world, buthe keeps a tight leash on Lousy’s billing, insists on authorizing any time spent on his many litigationmatters, and is never grateful for the amazing results Lousy manages to pull off time and again.Lousy decides he deserves an undisclosed bonus from Pain, who keeps ample funds in trust at alltimes. Lousy transfers $5,000 out of trust he does not think he has earned, but does not remember(due to his crummy trust account management) that he in fact earned those funds and more in earliermonths.

2-9

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Lousy Lawyer attempted to violate RPC 1.5 (fees)?

b. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Lousy Lawyer attempted to violate RPC 1.15 (trust accounts)?

See: RPC 1.5, 1.15, 8.4(a).

2. Carla Counsel represents Donny Deserving in defense of a criminal case in whichCarla is convinced that Donny is being unjustly accused of a crime that he did not commit.Prior to the trial, Carla gives what Carla believes to be wholly false information to the mediain an attempt to sway the court of public opinion, and the judge, in Donny’s favor. At trial,Carla puts on testimony from Wanda Witness that Carla believes to be wholly false. It turnsout, however, that both the information that Carla gave to the media and the testimonygiven by Wanda were true.

2-10

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Carla attempted to violate RPC 3.6 (pretrial publicity)?

b. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Carla attempted to violate RPC 3.3(a) (offering false evidence) or 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation)?

See: RPC 3.3(a), 8.4(a), (c).

3. Marsha Malpractice previously represented Dan Dupe in Matter A. Thereafter, Dupetells Marsha that he believes she committed malpractice while handling Matter A and thathe wants $5,000 to settle the matter. Knowing that she is not acting consistently with RPC1.8(h), Marsha sends Dan a check for $5,000 and a release which she asks him to signimmediately and without either advising Dan in writing of the desirability of seeking counselor giving Dan a reasonable opportunity to do so. In point of fact, however, Dan does notsimply sign the release and cash the check but first consults counsel.

2-11

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Marsha attempted to violate RPC 1.8 (settlement of claims)?

b. What if, instead, Marsha verbally told Dan about the desirability of seeking consult counsel butintentionally did not tell Dan in writing about the desirability of seeking counsel because shehoped Dan would fail to do so?

See: RPC 1.8(h), 8.4(a).

4. Mike Marketer, Esq., loves new clients. When MegaCorp offers Mike a particularlylucrative piece of work, Mike says “yes” over the phone even though he knows that heneeds, but probably will not get, informed consent from a former client of his firm due to aconflict under RPC 1.9. Mike then decides not to seek the consent of the former client inthe hopes that the former client won’t recognize the conflict since the firm has sincechanged names and since Mike was not involved in the prior representation. Mike thereforegoes ahead and sends an engagement letter to MegaCorp which makes no reference toany need for conflicts waivers. MegaCorp signs the engagement letter and returns it. A daylater, and before he has done any legal work for MegaCorp, Mike thinks better of the matterand decides to tell MegaCorp that he will not accept the matter.

2-12

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Mike attempted to violate RPC 1.9 (former client conflicts)?

See: RPC 1.9, 8.4(a).

5. Felicity Frustrated is a lawyer who is representing herself in litigation with SamStoneface. Upset with the fact that her settlement offers are ignored, and believing thatSam’s lawyer is either not passing on her offers to Sam or has given Sam unrealisticexpectations about what to expect in the litigation, Felicity calls Sam directly to discusssettling the case. In that call, Felicity explains her view of things and why Sam should takeher offer. Sam responds that he will accept Felicity’s terms and then adds that as ithappens, he had fired his lawyer earlier the same week and at that point is unrepresented.

2-13

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

a. Under RPC 8.4(a), has Mike attempted to violate RPC 4.2 (communications with representedparties)?

See: RPC 4.2, 8.4(a).

Second Afternoon Session

2-14

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

1. Lois Washington-Lawyer knows that as a matter of law, it is a crime in Washington torecord a telephone conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent but that it isnot a crime in Oregon to record a telephone conversation if at least one party consents.Lois therefore decides to travel to Oregon in order to have and record a phoneconversation with someone in Oregon that, Lois believes, will benefit her client. (Assumeno communication with represented parties issues under Washington RPC 4.2.)

a. If Lois has the conversation from Oregon and if the person on the other end of the call is also inOregon, would Lois be subject to discipline for violating Washington RPC 8.4(c), which prohibits“conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”?

b. In light of Washington RPC 8.5, would it make a difference if Lois’s phone conversation concerneda matter pending before a Washington tribunal?

See: RPC 8.4(c), 8.5.

2-15

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

2. Carla and Jessica are getting divorced. Carla retains Sara Surprisedlawyer torepresent her. Carla and Jessica continue to live together (during the divorce) because theyhave a 10-year old child together and they want to make the transition easier on the child.Carla plans to move out once the divorce is finalized and they plan thereafter to sell thehouse. There is a computer in the living room that their child uses for homework and thatCarla and Jessica use as well. One day, when no one was home, Carla installs spyware onthe computer; in the following days, Carla learns information about Jessica’s travel plansand how Jessica is spending funds online. Carla also notices that Jessica has forgotten tolog out of Gmail and so looks at Jessica’s emails as well.

While Sara, Carla’s lawyer, is getting ready to take Jessica’s deposition, Carla informs Sara that Carla believes Jessica is wasting their assets. The next day, Sara receives copies of Jessica’s emails in an unmarked brown envelope.

a. May Sara use the oral information she learned from Carla at Jessica’s deposition if she does notuse the emails themselves?

b. May Sara use the emails themselves?

c. What are Sara’s options with regard to staying in or withdrawing from the case?

d. If Sara stays in the case, will she be obligated to produce the emails she received in discovery?

e. If Sara withdraws must Sara keep the emails she received in the brown envelope?

See: RPC 1.1, 1.6(a) - (c), 4.4(b), 8.4(a) - (d).

2-16

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

3. Samuel Superlawyer represents disgruntled Emily Employee, who believes shesuffered significant racial and sexual discrimination while an employee at Big Bad and BoldToy Store. At the first meeting between Samuel and Emily, she tells him:

» I am so upset at Big Bad and Bold Toys – they treated me so unfairly over theyears. Settlement is off the table. This has to go to trial – I want everyone to knowabout how bad they are. I’ve already begun blogging about it and I want you to doso too. I don’t want you to cooperate with their counsel at all. No set-overs, nocourtesies. We set depositions on our schedule. I want you to file every motion youcan file – motions to compel, motions to dismiss, etc. And I want you to threatensanctions.

a. To what extent may, must or must not Samuel do as Emily requests?

b. To what extent may, must or must not Samuel tell Emily what he will or will not do at the outsetrather than waiting to see if he can talk her out of taking otherwise impermissible positions?

See: RPC 1.2(a), (b), 2.1, 4.4(a).

2-17

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

4. Daria Defenseattorney represents Tony, a member of a notorious local gang. Tony isaccused (along with others) of participating in a murder of a former gang member in a drugdeal gone bad. In their initial meeting, Tony is adamant that he wasn’t involved and claimsthat he was down in Portland at his nephew’s bar mitzvah when his “good friend” waskilled.

a. Daria’s investigator learns that there was no bar mitzvah in Portland and that Tony was in Seattleall weekend. In addition, GPS of Tony’s phone puts the phone near the location where the bodywas found. Tony claims there is a conspiracy against him and tells Daria that he plans to testifyhe was at a religious service in Seattle for much of the day. In fact, there is a synagogue near thelocation where the body was found and it was open for prayers all day. Daria’s investigatordetermines that no one who was at the synagogue can recall seeing Tony but that no one cansay for certain that he was not there. Must, may or must not Daria allow Tony to take the stand totestify?

b. Assume that in Tony’s case, substantive Washington law would permit the death penalty and thatDaria, an exceptionally reasonable lawyer, is wholly and reasonably convinced that anyreasonable jury will convict Tony of the murder and that the only way to have any chance saveTony from the death penalty is to concede that Tony was the killer and argue that he lackedsufficient mens rea to be guilty of first degree murder. Assuming as well that Tony is sufficientlycompetent to stand trial, how if at all, does this change the analysis as to whether Daria mayconcede that Tony was the killer and limit the defense to mens rea issues?

2-18

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

------------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

c. None of the above happened. Instead, Daria is contacted by the district attorney one monthbefore trial to inform her of a new witness, Jimmy – a “jailhouse snitch”, who was celled withTony at some point in the past year and who claims that Tony made numerous inculpatorystatements to him about his involvement in the murder. The district attorney intends to callJimmy as a witness at trial. Daria immediately remembers Jimmy – she represented him threeyears before on an unrelated domestic violence misdemeanor. The case was dismissed on theday of trial after the victim failed to show up. Does Daria have a conflict of interest? If so, arethere any options for her to remain in part but not all of the case?

See: RPC 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1(a).

The Co-Chairs Thank you!

David J. ElkanichHolland & Knight LLP2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower111 S.W. Fifth AvenuePortland, Oregon 97204P. - 503.517.2928David.Elkanich@hklaw.com

@DavidElkanich

Peter R. JarvisHolland & Knight LLP2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower111 S.W. Fifth AvenuePortland, Oregon 97204P. – 503.243.5877Peter.Jarvis@hklaw.com

42

2-19

/ I

----------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

/ I

----------------------------------------

Holland & Knight

CHAPTER THREE

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

3-1

WSBA-CLE

WASHINGTON'S RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (RPC)(Amended effective October 1, 2002, September 1, 2006, September 1, 2010; September 1, 2011;

December 13, 2011; September 1, 2012, September 1, 2013, January 1, 2014, April 14, 2015, September 1, 2016]

Fundamental Principles of Professional Conduct

Preamble and Scope

1.0A Terminology

1.0B Additional Washington Terminology

Title 1 Client-Lawyer Relationship

1.1 Competence

1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation

1.3 Diligence

1.4 Communication

1.5 Fees

1.6 Confidentiality of Information

1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

1.8 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules

1.9 Duties to Former Clients

1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule

1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees

1.12 Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator or Other Third-Party Neutral

1.13 Organization as Client

1.14 Client with Diminished Capacity

1.15A Safeguarding Property

1.15B Required Trust Account Records

1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation

1.17 Sale of Law Practice

1.18 Duties to Prospective Client

Title 2 Counselor

2.1 Advisor

2.2 (Deleted)

2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Persons

2.4 Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral

Title 3 Advocate

3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

3.2 Expediting Litigation

3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party

3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal

3.6 Trial Publicity

3.7 Lawyer as Witness

3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

3.9 Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings

Title 4 Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients

4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

4.2 Communication With Person Represented by a Lawyer

4.3 Dealing With Person Not Represented by a Lawyer

4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Person

Title 5 Law Firms and Associations

5.1 Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers

5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

5.4 Professional Independence of a Lawyer

5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law

5.6 Restrictions on Right to Practice

5.7 Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services

5.8 Misconduct Involving Lawyers and LLLTs Not Actively Licensed to Practice Law

5.9 Business Structures Involving LLLT and Lawyer Ownership

5.10 Responsibilities Regarding Other Legal Practitioners

Title 6 Public Service

6.1 Pro Bono Publico Service

6.2 Accepting Appointments

6.3 Membership in Legal Services Organization

6.4 Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests

6.5 Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Service Programs

Title 7 Information About Legal Services

7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyers Services

7.2 Advertising

7.3 Solicitation of Clients

7.4 Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization

7.5 Firm Names and Letterheads

7.6 Political Contributions to Obtain Government Legal Engagements or Appointments by Judges

Title 8 Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession

8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

8.2 Judicial and Legal Officials

8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

8.4 Misconduct

8.5 Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law

Appendix Guidelines for Applying Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6

3-2