the future: the future of ethics and legal profession …

THE FUTURE THE FUTURE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL

PROFESSION IN A FLAT WORLD

OPHELIA F CAMINtildeA Susman Godfrey LLP

901 Main Street Suite 5100 Dallas TX 75202-3775

(214) 754-1910 ocaminasusmangodfreycom

WILLIAM D ELLIOTT

Law Offices of William D Elliott 2626 Cole Avenue Suite 600

Dallas Texas 75204 2149229393

billwdelliottcom

State Bar of Texas THE FUTURE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL

PROFESSION IN A FLAT WORLD March 9 2010

Webcast

CHAPTER 1

THE FUTURE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL PROFESSION IN A FLAT WORLD Page 2


BIOGRAPHIES

Ophelia F Camintildea

Attorney at Law St Marys College of Notre Dame BA (1978 magna cum laude)University of Notre Dame JD (1982 cum laude) Associate Editor Notre Dame LawReview (1980-82) Thomas J and Alberta White Scholar for Law and Public Policy (1981-82) Law Clerk to US Northern Texas District Judge Hon Jerry Buchmeyer (1982-83Adjunct Professor SMU (1983-851988-89) Recipient The Dallas Business JournalsForty Under 40 Award to Up-and-Coming Dallas Area Business and CommunityLeaders (1993) Co-author Public Funding of Private Education A Public PolicyAnalysis 10 Journal of Legislation 146 (1983) Author A De Minimus Defense is NotAvailable to a Lender for a Technical Violation of Regulation Z 56 Notre Dame LawReview 573 (1981) Selective Preemption A Preferential Solution to the Bartkus-Abbate Rule in Successive Federal-State Prosecutions 57 Notre Dame Law Review 340(1982) Member Dallas and American Bar Associations State Bar of Texas (1983-)Sustaining Life Fellow Dallas Bar Foundation Texas Bar Foundation Chair Dallas BarFellows (2002) Master Mac Taylor American Inn of Court Barrister HiggenbothamAmerican Inn of Court

William D Elliott

Attorney at Law Board Certified in Tax Law Texas Board of Legal SpecializationBoard Certified in Estate Planning and Probate Law Texas Board of LegalSpecialization Southeast State College BS (1970) Southern Methodist University JD1973) New York University LLM (in Taxation 1974) Article Editor Journal of Air Lawamp Commerce (1972-1973) Barristers Adjunct Professor SMU School of Law (present1997 1991 1992) Former Chair State Bar of Texas Board of Directors (2004-2005)Author FEDERAL TAX COLLECTION LIENS amp LEVIES (Warren Gorham amp Lamont 2009 2ded) Author TEXAS TAXES ANNOTATED with J Scott Morris (West 2009) Author ldquoEthicsand Risks in Multi-Party Representationrdquo CCH Taxes December 2009 AuthorldquoSubstitutes for Returnrdquo CCH Taxes October 2009 Author ldquoPurchasing Property froma Delinquent Taxpayerrdquo CCH Taxes September 2009 Life Fellow Texas BarFoundation Recipient Dan Price Award Texas Bar Foundation (June 2008)

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote a book entitled ldquoThe World Is Flat A Brief History of1

the Twenty-first Centuryrdquo He explains how the flattening of the world happened at the dawn of the twenty-first

century what it means to countries companies communities and individuals and how governments and societies

can and must adapt

L Terry The Legal World Is Flat Globalization and its Effect on Lawyers Practicing in Non-global Law2

Firms 28 Nw J Intl L amp Bus 527 530 (2008)


THE FUTURE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL PROFESSIONIN A FLAT WORLD1

By William D Elliott amp Ophelia F Camintildea

1 INTRODUCTION

a Thomas Friedman has described our shrinking world usingthe phrase ldquoFlat Worldrdquo He makes the point that our globaleconomic world is more inter-connected more than everbefore Friedmanrsquos flattening forces2

i November 9 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down

ii Netscapes August 1995 initial public offering whichsignaled in a concrete way the new Internet era inwhich we live

iii Work flow software which enabled individuals indifferent locations to work on different tasks in realtime and communicate effectively with one another

iv ldquoUploadingrdquo and ldquoopen-sourcingrdquo which allowsindividuals to harness the new powers ofcommunication and send their products out into theworld often for free

v Outsourcing much of which originally came about asa result of the Y2K computer bug

vi Offshoring which is related to outsourcing and oftenincludes the situation in which one takes the entire


production and not merely a specific function to alower cost-higher productivity area

vii ldquoSupply-chainingrdquo which he described as a ldquomethodof collaborating horizontally--among suppliersretailers and customers--to create valuerdquo

viii In-sourcing in which companies find new businessesand needs they can provide and do so in-house

ix ldquoIn-formingrdquo by which he means the ability ofindividuals to search the worlds knowledge baseusing tools such as Google Yahoo and MSN

x ldquoThe steroidsrdquo referring to rapid advancements in thespeed and capacity of digital mobile personal andvirtual technologies

xi After identifying these ten ldquoflattening forcesrdquoFriedman conceded that many of these flatteners hadbeen around for years what was important was notjust the flattening factors--but their convergence

b Globalization is a word expressing similar thought we livein a commercial world in which the US economy isconnected with economies of other major and even perhapsminor countries throughout the world The daily newsincludes stories of US companies impacted by eventsthroughout the world

i The European Union has had a running battle withMicrosoft for over a decade it seems

ii Internet security breaches in the US are tied toforeign governments

iii Halliburton moves its headquarters to Dubai fromDallas

Statistics provided by the State Bar of Texas3

This statistic compares with US statistics Roughly 10 of the lawyers practicing in the US are4

employed as in-house counsel by business or non-profit organizations C Carson The Lawyer Statistical Report

The US Legal Profession in 1995 at 1 7 (1999) Hazard 44 Ariz L Rev 593 598 n 21


c Technology particularly the internet is and has transformedlegal practice in the same manner as it has changed society

d US law practice similarly changing in a myriad of wayswith the biggest firms seemingly getting bigger Everymajor city including the four largest Texas cities have officesof some of the largest US firms

2 FAST FACTS

a As of January 2010 85813 active Texas lawyers 3

i Median age 48

ii The rate of increase of Texas lawyers is about 4

iii Ratio of Texas Attorneys to all Texans 1 289compared with ratios in past decades

(1) 2000 1 309(2) 1990 1 310(3) 1980 1 398(4) 1970 1 555(5) 1960 1 675(6) 1950 1 705(7) 1940 1 739

iv 67 of Texas lawyers are private practitioners

(1) 11 are corporatein-house counsel4

(2) 80 in largest 4 metropolitan areas

Am Bar Found the 1961 Lawyer Statistical Report 11 (1961)5

Mkt Research Deprsquot Am Bar Assrsquon Lawyer Demographics 1 (2006)6

httpwwwabanetorgmarketresearchlawyer_demographics_2006pdf

R Stein The Future of the Legal Profession 90 Minn L Rev 1 (2006)7


(3) 10 of private practitioners in firms of 200lawyers and above

(4) 59 of private practitioners in firms of 5lawyers and below

v Grievances filed against Texas lawyers by year hasremained flat or even declined somewhat even as thepopulations of Texas lawyers has increased

(1) 2008-09 7108(2) 2007-08 7308(3) 2006-07 6954(4) 2005-06 7494

b In 1961 there were 286000 lawyers in the United States5

today there are over 11000006

i American lawyers represent about one-fourth of allthe 4000000 lawyers in the world7

ii The second largest national barmdashIndia has about750000 lawyers (not quite three-fourths of thenumber of lawyers in the United States) and Brazilthe third largest national bar has almost 500000lawyers (less than half the number in the UnitedStates)

c Only 38 American law firms had more than 50 lawyers in thelate 1950s

M Galanter amp TPalay Why the Big Get Bigger The Promotion-to-Partner Tournament and the Growth8

of Large Law Firms 76 Va L Rev 747 749 (1990) Hazard 44 Ariz L Rev 593 596-597

Maturing Market Will Affect Profession in 90s B Leader Sept-Oct 1990 at 11 Hazard 44 Ariz L9

Rev 593 596-597

Am Bar Found The 1971 Lawyer Statistical Report 10 (1972) 10

Richard L Abel American Lawyers 179 300 (1989)11

Richard L Abel American Lawyers 202-03 (1989)12

Id at 20313

Hazard 44 Ariz L Rev 593 598 n 2014


i By 1986 over 500 firms were that large and about halfof them had more than 100 lawyers8

ii By the 1990s as a result of internal growth andmergers the largest 100 law firms accounted for 20of all legal fees Several firms now have over 1000lawyers9

d As late as 1951 nearly 60 of the lawyers practicing in theUnited States were solo practitioners By 1989 however10

more private practitioners were working in firms than assolos11

e In the late 1960s sole practitioners derived 65 of theirreceipts from individuals and only 20 from businesseswhile firms with twenty to forty-nine lawyers derived only6 of their receipts from individuals and 78 frombusinesses this gulf widened in the 1970s The proportion12

of their fees that private practitioners earned fromindividual clients fell below 50 around 1980 and has13

continued to dwindle This change correlates directly withthe growth of large firms14

J Kilpatrick Specialty Lawyer Associations Their Role in the Socialization Process 33 Gonz L Rev15

501 508 (1997-98) Hazard 44 Ariz L Rev 593 600 n 28

W Henderson The Globalization of the Legal Profession 14 Ind J Global Legal Stud 1 2 (2007)16

American Bar Foundation The Lawyer Statistical Report The Legal Profession in 2000 6-8 (2004)17

httpwwwabf-sociolegalorglawstathtml (last visited May 1 2008)

National Association of Legal Practitioners Employment Patterns 1982-200618

httpwwwnalporgcontentindexphppid=515 (showing that in 2006 365 of men 401 of women 348 of

non-minorities and 485 of minorities went into firms of more than 100 lawyers)

S Williams amp D Nersessian Overview of the Professional Services Industry and the Legal Profession19

(Harvard Law School Center on Lawyers) p 5

E Schwartz Law Firms Gain but With Big Caveat Legal Times April 22 2005 S Williams amp D20

Nersessian Overview of the Professional Services Industry and the Legal Profession (Harvard Law School Center on

Lawyers) p 6


f Over 1000 specialty bar associations now exist andobserving that the number has risen sharply in recentyears 15

g The number of lawyers working for the Am Law 200 firmsgrew 84 between 1993 and 2003 16

h According to the American Bar Foundation in 2000approximately 483 of the lawyers in private practice weresole practitioners and only 143 worked in firms of morethan 100 lawyers Even among more recent law school17

graduates less than half of the graduates go into practicewith firms of more than 100 lawyers Today some18

estimates project that 28 of new lawyers now work for thebig law firms Thus the average US lawyer does not19

practice in a large global law firm

i Over the last decade corporate firms have increased theirhourly rates by 6-8 percent annually nearly double the rateof inflation In one sample rate increases accounted for twothirds of revenue gains achieved between 2003 and 200420

The phrase derived from Model Rules of Profl Conduct R 113 (2003) Professor Hazard describes21

Model Rule 113 as a ldquomajor advance in ethical analysis Indeed it is fair to say that Rule 113 was the most

important contribution of the ethics revision expressed in the Model Rules compared with the Model Code The

formulation in Rule 113 clearly recognizes important distinctions between the organization as client and the

corporate personnel with whom the lawyer interacts in representing the entityrdquo G Hazard Imputed Conflicts of

Interest in International Law Practice 30 Okla City U L Rev 489 492 (2005)

Hazard 30 Okla City U L Rev 489 495-49622

THE FUTURE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL PROFESSION IN A FLAT WORLD 0

3 TRENDS FORECASTING CHANGES IN US LAW PRACTICE

a Stratification of US Law Practice

i While a majority of US practice in small practicegroups the largest firms are seemingly getting larger

ii The trend is for US lawyers to continue migrating tothe largest US cities

b To a significant degree US practice today involvesrepresentation of corporations and other organizations Theclient operates through ldquoduly authorized constituentsrdquo21

i To middle and large-sized law firms the imputationrule is inconvenient and troublesome

ii In all legal systems it is recognized that an individuallawyer may not properly represent clients whoseinterests are in conflict22

(1) This rule would even extend to other litigationin unrelated subjects

(2) Similarly to preclude adversity toward aformer client in litigation concerning the same

See generally Geoffrey C Hazard Jr amp Angelo Dondi Legal Ethics A Comparative Study 179 (2004)23

cited in Hazard 30 Okla City U L Rev 489 496

Id24

Hazard 30 Okla City U L Rev 489 496 citing Iowa Supreme Court Bd of Profl Ethics v Wagner25

599 NW2d 721 (Iowa 1999) Baldasarre v Butler 625 A2d 458 (NJ 1993)


matter in which the lawyer previously actedfor that client23

(3) But there is the reality that a lawyer needs toserve successive clients Thus the Model Ruleprecludes adversity precluded not in allsubsequent matters but only in the ldquosame or asubstantially relatedrdquo matter Professor Hazardpoints out the ambiguous nature of the phraseby saying ldquoHence we simply have to live with ameasure of uncertainty - indeed ldquosubstantialrdquouncertaintyrdquo24

iii Conflicts in litigation are almost always clearer thanin transactional practice There is an immediateremedy (disqualification) and a forum forenforcement of the remedy at least in common lawjurisdictions

(1) In transactions whether there are adverserelationships can be far from clear

(2) The lawyerrsquos judgment and the consent of theparties appear to control in the ethical rulesCourts have traditionally accepted the lawyerrsquosjudgment that representation of multipleparties was permitted but more recentlyjudicial disapproval is appearing morefrequently25

iv Numerous exceptions have been created to theimputation rule to list a few

Hazard 30 Okla City U L Rev 489 50326


(1) Rule 19(b) provides that the imputationldquotaintrdquo is removed from a lawyer who leaves afirm unless while in the firm the lawyer hadpersonally acquired confidential information inthe matter in question

(2) Rule 110(b) provides that the firm from whicha ldquotaintedrdquo lawyer has left is no longer barredby imputation unless there are lawyersremaining in the firm who have confidentialinformation in the matter in question

(3) Exchange of information between client andlawyer prior to formation of a client-lawyerrelationship Model Rule 118 requires thelawyer receiving information from aprospective client to maintain it essentially onthe same basis as confidences from a clientRule 118(d)(2) limits the disqualifying effect ofthe reception if

(a) the lawyer avoided ldquoexposure to moredisqualifying information than wasreasonably necessaryrdquo

(b) that lawyer was screened from asubsequent adverse representation and

(c) notice was sent promptly to theerstwhile prospective client 26

v Consents to Conflicts

Id In Formal Opinion 93-372 issued in 1993 the Committee concluded that an advance waiver would be27

proper only if among other requirements there was specific identification of parties whose conflicting interests were

involved ABA Comm on Ethics and Profl Responsibility Formal Op 372 (1993) ABA Comm on Ethics and

Profl Responsibility Formal Op 436 (2005)


(1) The problem of conflicts of interest among lawfirm lawyers has become increasinglygoverned by contract rather than by rule

(2) Rule 17(b) authorizing client consent to aconflict under the conditions stated in thatrule Model Rule 17(b)(4) provides that alawyer or law firm may undertakerepresentations involving a conflict of interestif ldquoeach affected client gives informed consentconfirmed in writingrdquo provided that thearrangement is objectively reasonable is nototherwise prohibited by law and does notinvolve representation of the clients againsteach other in litigation

(3) Today law firms are increasingly endeavoringto obtain informed consent to future conflictsoften called ldquoadvance waiversrdquo27

(4) The ABA Ethics Committee revisited thematter of future waivers on May 11 2005 inFormal Opinion 05-436 permitting advancedwaivers with limits

(a) Conflicts cannot be waived that are inthe exceptions specified in Model Rule17(b)

(b) Consent to a conflict is not consent ldquotothe disclosure or use of the clientsconfidential information against theclientrdquo

ABA Comm on Ethics and Profl Responsibility Formal Op 05-436 (2005)28


A Davis Regulation of the Legal Profession in the United States and the Future of Global Law Practice30

19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)

M Raymond The Professionalism of Ethics 33 Fordham Urb LJ 153 157 (2005) citing W Bower31

Ten Action Steps for More Profitable Productive Practices L Prac Mgmt April 1999 at 30 (ldquoIn todays economy

no one wants a generalist to handle their problem everyone wants a specialist A specialist almost always wins

against a generalist Large-firm lawyers learned this long ago Solos and lawyers in small firms also should

specializerdquo) E Clark Jr Characteristics of Successful Law Firms Utah B Rev Mar 1997 at 23 23

(ldquoSuccessful law firms must have a focus or raison detre and each lawyer should develop specialized expertise

[consistent] with the firms missionrdquo)


(c) Consent may be required from the otherclient in the matter undertaken in thefuture28

vi Resolution of conflicts by contract is predicted to bethe trend as globalization proceeds29

c The largest US law firms have moved to a global USpractice

i There are more than 80 US law firms-- includingmany law firms with offices in state capitolsthroughout the US-- that have offices in London30

d More US lawyers in all practice size practice someinternational work

e With increasing frequency lawyers in individual statespractice across state lines

i ABA Model Rule 55

f Specialization has increased 31

i Some Federal agencies control to a substantial degreethe speciality practices

Eg Kennedy v Mindprint (In re ProEduation Intrsquol Inc) 587 F3d 296 (5th Cir 2009)(ldquoWhen32

considering motions to disqualify courts should first look to ldquothe local rules promulgated by the local court itselfrdquo

The Local Rules of the Southern District of Texas provide that ldquothe minimum standard of practice shall be the Texas

Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conductrdquo (Texas Rules) and that violations of the Texas Rules ldquoshall be grounds

for disciplinary action but the court is not limited by that coderdquo Therefore the Texas Rules ldquoare not the sole

authority governing a motion to disqualifyrdquo A reviewing court also ldquoconsider[s] the motion governed by the ethical

rules announced by the national profession in light of the public interest and the litigants rightsrdquo The Fifth Circuit

has recognized the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) as the national standards to consider

in reviewing motions to disqualify Therefore we shall consider both the Texas Rules and the Model Rulesrdquo

(citations omitted) See also F Zacherias amp B Green Federal Court Authority to Regulate Lawyers a Practice in

Search of a Theory 56 Vand L Rev 1303 (2003)


(1) Tax practice regulated by IRS

(2) Securities practice regulated by the SEC

(3) Patent practice regulated by the PTO

ii Federal legislation regulates US lawyers or impactsUS practice substantially

(1) Bankruptcy

(2) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

(3) Fair Debt Collection Act

iii Federal courts adjudicate legal ethic and practiceissues32

iv Traditionally at least since the 1950s the tradition barassociations have formed sections to allow thoselawyers practicing in specialities to obtain theirspecialized CLE needs This concept has grown to thepoint that there are now over 1000 specialty bars inthe US that are the primary association of thelawyers practicing in that specialty bar suggestingthe diminished role of the traditional state bar suchas the Texas Bar Association

See L Bierman amp M Hitt The Globalization of Legal Practice in the Internet Age 14 Ind J Global33

Legal Stud 29 (2006)


(1) Association of Corporate Counsel

(2) American Association of Trial Lawyers

(3) The National Association of Criminal DefenseLawyers and the Texas Association of CriminalDefense Counsel

v Specialized lawyer groups can attempt to influencelegislation thus avoiding the limitations onmandatory bar associations such as the Texas Bar

(1) The Business Law Foundation of the TexasBusiness Law Section was formed to enablebusiness law issues to be presented anddiscussed before the legislature and Congress

g Technology and Internet

i Technology and the internet are among the mostimportant developments affecting US legal practiceover the last 10 years Consider what has happened33

since 911 (September 11 2001)

(1) The use of the internet for transmitting dataand currency payments has becomecommonplace

(2) The IPOD was introduced in October 2001

(3) The proliferation of the cell phone has nowbecome almost global and complete

(4) The speed and volume of data and informationpassing over the Internet has virtuallyexploded with no end in sight The recent


introduction of the IPAD by Apple has begunraising concerns over the capacity of theInternet to handle the demands for data andinformation

(5) Wireless broadband has become commonplace

(6) Analog has vanished replaced by all thingsdigital

(7) If all of this has occurred in the last 8 yearssince 911 then what will happen over thenext 10 or 20 years

ii Competition

(1) Technology has flattened the legal world

(2) State regulation of law practice within thatstate has weakened as the Internet has enablecommunications to transcend State regulations For example advertising limitations onlawyers does not affect the websites of lawyersoutside of Texas but that are reachable byTexas citizens

(3) Three of the largest law firms in the world areheadquartered in London with over one-halfof their lawyers in foreign countries Large USlaw firms are competing in this market

(4) Outsourcing of legal work to India is anincreasing trend

(5) Arguably lawyers in all practice areas and inall sized towns and cities are impacted by thisincreased competition


(6) Many have departed the large law firms topractice solo or in small groups usingtechnology to offer high-quality legal service

iii Work Habits

(1) Flexible work schedules and practices arecommonly discussed

(2) Time zone barriers have fallen on account ofthe internet and enhanced technologicalcommunications

(3) There still remains however the need forpolitical ldquoface timerdquo at the office

iv Work Monitoring and Standardization

(1) Technology has accelerated a trend towardsstandardization of law practice Legal researchis made easier Some corporations auction oron-line bidding for legal services

h Demographic Changes Affecting US Law Practice

i Demographic Changes Affecting US Law Practice

(1) 55 of lawyers are baby-boomers

(2) A great deal of the US legal population willretire or leave the practice in the next 10 years

ii Culture of the New Generations of Lawyers

See A Davis Regulation of the Legal Profession in the United States and the Future of Global Law34

Practice 19 No 2 Prof Law 1 (2009) C Whelan The Paradox of Professionalism Global Law Practice Means

Business 27 Penn St Intl L Rev 465 (2008)


i Liberalization of Law Practice is Occurring in Britain andAustralia34

i Law firm in Australia went public (personal injuryfirm and not a global firm)

ii 25 ownership by non-lawyer permitted in Britainthus enabling investors or equity for firm managers

iii ldquoAlternative Business Structurerdquo permitted in Britainand Australia and includes multi-disciplinarypractices including legal and non-legal services andnon-lawyers as owners

iv What is impact on these liberalizations on US lawfirms wanting to compete in London or elsewhere inthe world

(1) Fee-Splitting issues

(a) To quote Anthony Davis a leadingcommentator ldquounder the existing rules inevery jurisdiction except the District ofColumbia the individual lawyers in thosefirms sitting in their offices around theUnited States would be in violation of theirhome states rules against fee sharing withnon-lawyers and against any arrangementswhere non-lawyers may be seen ascontrolling or having an interest in thedelivery of legal services by virtue ofarrangements between their London


19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)


19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009) See J Maute Revolutionary Changes to the English Legal Profession or Much

Ado about Nothing 17 No 4 Prof Law 1 (2006)


partners permitted by the Legal ServicesActrdquo35

(2) Competition

(a) The largest US law firms are not goingto sit by and let their competitivepositions erode

(i) At present 80 US law firmshave London offices

(b) Perhaps they seek legislation in theirrespective states

(c) Perhaps they ask Congress for reliefmoving to a Federal regulation of largelaw firms and even permittingalternative business structure much likepermitted in England and Australia

(d) Will London replace New York as theworld center of legal services36

4 THE AGENDA OF THE ETHICS 2020 COMMISSION

a The ABA formed a new commission in August 2009 to studythe future of the US legal profession This newcommission called the ldquoEthics 2020 Commissionrdquo ischarged with spending the next three years considering

Rule 17 Conflict Of Interest Current Clients37

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a

concurrent conflict of interest A concurrent conflict of interest exists if

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the

lawyers responsibilities to another client a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer


i Review ethics rules and regulations in light oftechnological advances and globalization includingexamining changes in other countries

ii Is our traditional model of regulation of theprofession and admission outmoded

iii Traditional law firms versus global law firms

b Overview of Agenda

i Admission of US lawyers to practice in othercountries

ii Admission of foreign lawyers to practice in the US

iii Pros and cons of proposals for state-based nationallicensure

iv Outsourcing issues not raised in Opinion 08-451

v Re-examination of Model Rule 17 (Conflict ofInterest-Current Client) in light of the trends ofsubstantial growth in law firm size mergers andconsolidations of such firms and the emergence ofmany ldquoglobalrdquo law firms including regulatorydisparities among nations in which multinationalfirms practice37

Rule 16 Confidentiality Of Information38

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed

consent the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted

by paragraph (b)

Rule 85 Disciplinary Authority Choice Of Law39

(a) Disciplinary Authority A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of

this jurisdiction regardless of where the lawyers conduct occurs A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also

subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services

in this jurisdiction A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another

jurisdiction for the same conduct

(b) Choice of Law In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction the rules of professional conduct

to be applied shall be as follows

(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal the rules of the jurisdiction in which the

tribunal sits unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise and

(2) for any other conduct the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyerrsquos conduct occurred or if the

predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the

conduct A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyerrsquos conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in

which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyerrsquos conduct will occur


vi Application of Model Rule 16 Confidentialityincluding inadvertent waiver and disclosure issues38

vii Application of Model Rule 85 Choice of Laws 39

viii Consideration of Alternative Business Structures(ABS)

(1) As summarized by Christopher Whelan anABS will

(a) allow the creation of multi disciplinarypractices

(b) be able to provide any type of legalservices both reserved and unreservedas well as other related services such asinsurance surveying and so on

(c) be a ldquoone-stop shoprdquo for prospectiveconsumers of legal services and

C Whelan The Paradox of Professionalism Global Law Practice Means Business 27 Penn St Intl L40

Rev 465 481 (2008)


(d) be able to raise capital by listing on thestock exchange to float their shares andto be publicly traded

(e) ldquoit is entirely possible for non-lawyersincluding commercial organizations to ownfirms that provide legal servicesrdquo 40

ix Regulations of firms or lawyers

x International arbitration and application of ModelRules

xi Whether the ABA Model Rules unnecessarily impedea lawyer or law firmrsquos ability to employ newtechnologies in representing clients

xii Whether existing UPL rules address adequatelyvirtual law firms

xiii Whether there should be different standardsapplicable to providing advice on law that is uniformnationwide such as federal or international law

xiv Do the ABA Model Rules and existing disciplinaryenforcement mechanisms adequately address the useof social networking sites by lawyers and law firms

xv How can the ABA encourage increased transparencyabout lawyers and legal services

xvi Do advances in technology increase or enhance theopportunities for lawyers and law firms to improveaccess to justice

xvii Does the rapid pace of technological evolution raiseissues relating to lawyer competence

This discussion on Conflicts of Interest is taken substantially from G Hazard Imputed Conflicts of41

Interest in International Law Practice 30 Okla City U L Rev 489 (2005)

Eg Model Rules of Profl Conduct R 17 (2003) ldquo[A] lawyer shall not represent a client if the42

representation involve[s] conflict of interestrdquoId at R 19(a) ldquoldquoA lawyer who has formerly represented a client

shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that persons

interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client rdquo


xviii Whether there is or should be a professionalobligation to understand and to use new technologiesand new applications reasonably

xix What difficulties do technological advances create forlawyers law firms and regulators in terms ofestablishing a jurisdictional nexus for the applicationof ethical and disciplinary rules

5 CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED BYTHE ETHICS 2020 COMMISSION

a The membership of the Ethics 2020 Commission isattached The readers can form their own belief of theapproach of the commission based on the persons serving onit Note There are no Texans on the Commission

b The complete initial agenda for the Commission is attachedbut the following discussion selects certain issues

c Conflicts of Interest41

i The US tradition of ethical rules is aimed at the solopractitioner Most rules use the phrase ldquothe lawyerrdquoand speak of the conduct of a lawyer not a law firm42

ii Imputation is a key issue To what extent are severalmembers of a multi-member law firm should betreated as a single personage for purposes of ethicaland legal responsibility

J Ham Ethical Considerations Relating to Outsourcing of Legal Services by Law Firms to Foreign43

Service Providers Perspectives from the United States 28 Penn St Intrsquol L Rev 323 (2008) from which this

discussion was taken


(1) Imputation arises among lawyers in the lawdepartments of business corporations otherprivate organizations and in public agencylaw departments such as the corporationcounsel for a city or county or the office of anattorney general

(2) The most important imputation conflict ofinterest arises from lawyers in the same firm Under the US rule governing America-basedlaw firms imputed preclusion operates acrossthe world Hence an engagement in a Moscowtransaction can be the basis of adisqualification motion in California

d Outsourcing

i The idea of outsourcing refers to a subcontracting aprocess to a third-party company Commonly thelaw firm office opens an office overseas staffed byforeign nationals or a law firm hires a foreign-basedcompany to carry out legal support tasks43

ii ABA Formal Op 08i-451 Lawyerrsquos Obligations WhenOutsourcing Legal and Nonlegal Support Services (Aug5 2008)

(1) The opinion then gives accepts use of contractlawyers ldquoThere is nothing unethical about alawyer outsourcing legal services provided theoutsourcing lawyer renders legal services to theclient with the lsquolegal knowledge skill thoroughnessand preparation reasonably necessary for therepresentationrsquo as required by [Model] Rule 11rdquo


iii Key Issues in Outsourcing

(1) Supervision

(a) The ethical responsibility of anoutsourcing lawyer to make reasonableefforts to ensure that the contract lawyerconforms to the Rules of ProfessionalConduct

(b) This duty is no different from theresponsibility of a lawyer supervisingthe work of another attorney who isemployed by the supervising lawyerrsquosfirm

(2) Competence

(a) The Opinion raises additional issuesrelating to foreign lawyers including

(i) whether the system of legaleducation under which thelawyers were trained iscomparable to that in the UnitedStates

(ii) whether the foreign lawyers aresubject to a professionalregulatory system that inculcatescore values similar to those in theUnited States the ldquolegallandscaperdquo of the nation to whichthe services are being outsourced(and specifically whetherpersonal property includingdocuments may be susceptible toseizure in judicial oradministrative proceedings


notwithstanding claims of clientconfidentiality) and

(iii) whether the judicial system of thetarget country will provideprompt and effective remedies toavert prejudice to the client in theevent of a dispute between theservice provider and theoutsourcing lawyer

(b) ldquoRule 11 does not require that tasks beaccomplished in any special way The rulerequires only that the lawyer who isresponsible to the client satisfies herobligation to render legal servicescompetentlyrdquo

(c) In the words of the Opinion

ldquoAt a minimum a lawyer outsourcingservices for ultimate provision to a clientshould consider conducting reference checksand investigating the background of thelawyer or nonlawyer providing serviceprovider The lawyer also might considerinterviewing the principal lawyers if anyinvolved in the project among other thingsassessing their educational backgroundWhen dealing with an intermediary thelawyer may wish to inquire into its hiringpractices to evaluate the quality andcharacter of the employees likely to haveaccess to client informationrdquo

(3) Conflict Checks

(a) Minimum due diligence required toclear conflicts before engagingoutsourced lawyers or company


(4) Confidentiality

(a) ldquoAlso the outsourcing lawyer should bemindful of the obligation to actcompetently to safeguard informationrelating to the representation of a clientagainst inadvertent or unauthorizeddisclosure by the lawyer or other personswho are participating in the representationof the client or who are subject to thelawyers supervision

(b) ldquoThis requires the lawyer to recognize andminimize the risk that any outside serviceprovider may inadvertently - or perhapseven advertently - reveal client confidentialinformation to adverse parties or to otherswho are not entitled to accessldquo

(c) ldquoWritten confidentiality agreements aretherefore strongly advisable in outsourcingrelationships Likewise to minimize the riskof potentially wrongful disclosure theoutsourcing lawyer should verify that theoutside service provider does not also dowork for adversaries of their clients on thesame or substantially related matters insuch an instance the outsourcing lawyercould choose another providerrdquo

(d) ldquoDepending on the sensitivity of theinformation being provided to the serviceprovider the lawyer should considerinvestigating the security of the providerspremises computer network and perhapseven its recycling and refuse disposalproceduresrdquo

(5) Client Consent


(a) ldquoit may be necessary for the lawyer toprovide information concerning theoutsourcing relationship to the client andperhaps to obtain the clients informedconsent to the engagement of lawyers ornonlawyers who are not directly associatedwith the lawyer or law firm that the clientretainedrdquo

(b) ldquoThus where the relationship between thefirm and the individuals performing theservices is attenuated as in a typicaloutsourcing relationship no informationprotected by Rule 16 may be revealedwithout the clients informed consent Theimplied authorization of Rule 16(a) and itsComment [5] thereto to share confidentialinformation within a firm does not extend tooutside entities or to individuals over whomthe firm lacks effective supervision andcontrolrdquo

(6) Billing Practices

(a) ldquothe fees charged by the outsourcing lawyermust be reasonable and otherwise complywith the requirements of Rule 15 InFormal Opinion No 00-420 we concludedthat a law firm that engaged a contractlawyer could add a surcharge to the costpaid by the billing lawyer provided the totalcharge represented a reasonable fee for theservices provided to the clientrdquo

(b) No markup us permitted if the firmdecides to pass the cost of hiring acontract lawyer through to the client asa disbursement

R Anello Preserving the Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege Here and Abroad 27 Penn St Intrsquol L44

Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls

(b) Malpractice Insurance

(c) Political Issues

e Attorney-Client Privilege

i A recent article summarized the situation of the44

attorney-client privilege in international practicewhich could be summarized as follows

(1) The well-developed attorney-client privilege inthe US is less well-formed outside the USthough it is recognized generally

(2) In the last 10 years many Federal prosecutorshave assaulted the privilege especially thecorporate attorney-client privilege Federalprosecutors have sought waivers of thecorporate attorney-client privilege in exchangefor relief from criminal prosecution The SEChas followed suit

(3) Many countries deny a corporate attorney-client privilege for in-house counsel

(4) Courts in other countries will perhaps if notprobably require the attorney whosecommunications are sought to be brought withthe attorney-client privilege to be a member ofthe bar of the country in question

Kimberly E Frank CPAsrsquo Perceptions of the Emerging Multidisciplinary AccountingLegal Practice45

Accounting Horizons March 2001 S Williams amp D Nersessian Overview of the Professional Services Industry

and the Legal Profession (Harvard Law School Center on Lawyers) p 9

Mona L Hymel Multi disciplinary Practices Where are They What Happened Tax Notes May 1046

2004

See American Bar Association Commission on Multi jurisdictional Practice Website47

httpabanetorgcprmjp-homehtml


ii A US attorney who is not a member of the bar of aforeign country should be particularly concerned overwhether there would be a privilege at all

f Multi-Disciplinary Practices (MDP)

i In the 1990s law firms began to face increasedcompetition from large accounting firms By the year1998 traditional accounting and auditing representedonly 34 percent of the total revenue generated by theldquoBig 8rdquo accounting firms45

ii These firms expanded into other services such asconsulting and quasi-legal services includinglitigation support dispute consulting services andrepresentation for clients in tax disputes Some firmsexperimented with ways to provide other legalservices such as preparing estate planningdocuments and assisting clients in forming legalentities such as corporations46

iii Two developments stemmed the growth into MDPs

(1) An ABA 2000 report declined to alter theprovisions of its Model Rules that precludelawyers from sharing fees with non-lawyers(including other professional serviceproviders) While the ABA is not binding on47

the states the ABA policies are influential andform the basis of the ethical rules of legal

Id S Williams amp D Nersessian Overview of the Professional Services Industry and the Legal Profession48


See David Clementi Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Wales-Final49

Report (2004) cited in C Whelan The Paradox of Professionalism Global Law Practice Means Business 27 Penn

St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)

Legal Services Act 2007 sect 12 sched 2 (Eng) [hereinafter LSA] Courts and Legal Services Act50

1990 (Eng) as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Eng) Solicitors Act 1974 sectsect 22-23 (Eng)


practice that have been adopted in manyjurisdictions

(2) Corporate scandals such as the collapse ofEnron highlighted the conflicts of interest thatcan arise when different types of professionalservices are delivered by a single firm whichled to passage of restrictive legislation such asthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act restricting a firmrsquosability to offer different types of professionalservices to the same client UnderSarbanes-Oxley accounting firms that provideauditing services to corporate clients areprecluded from providing a host of otherservices including consulting and quasi-legalservices48

iv Some European nations are beginning to allow fullmulti disciplinary practices Following a report byEnglandrsquos ldquoClementi Commissionrdquo and enactment49

of the Legal Services Act of 2007 for example all50

British companies from accounting firms to grocerystores may provide legal services Great Britainallows outside investors to own and manage lawfirms The British experiment combined withongoing economic pressures and the perceived needfor interrelated expertise to advise complex problems

For good summary of legal reforms in England see C Whelan The Paradox of Professionalism Global51

Law Practice Means Business 27 Penn St Intl L Rev 465 (2008) See also S Williams amp D Nersessian

Overview of the Professional Services Industry and the Legal Profession (Harvard Law School Center on Lawyers)

p 9 A Davis Regulation of the Legal Profession in the United States and the Future of Global Law Practice 19 No

2 Prof Law 1 (2009)

C Wolfram Sneaking Around in the Legal Profession Interjurisdictional Unauthorized Practice by52

Transactional Lawyers 36 S Tex L Rev 665 703 n122 (1995) (characterizing the call for federalization of legal

ethics as ldquoimaginative yet unconvincingrdquo) F Zacharias the Future Structure and Regulation of Law Practice

Confronting Lies Fictions and False Paradigms in Legal Ethics Regulation 44 Ariz L Rev 829 834 (2002)

Birbrower Montalbano Condon amp Frank PC v Superior Court 949 P2d 1 (Cal 1998) discussed in53

Stephen Gillers Lessons From the Multi jurisdictional Practice Commission The Art of Making Change 44 Ariz L

Rev 685 (2002) Since Birbrower v Superior Court numerous cases have applied the same approach See eg In

re Desilets 247 BR 660 672 (WD Mich 2000) affd 255 BR 294 (WD Mich 2000) (holding that a lawyers

admission to federal bankruptcy court did not entitle lawyer to hold himself out as eligible to practice bankruptcy law

in the state in which the court was located) Koscove v Bolte 30 P3d 784 7863 (Colo Ct App 2001) cert denied

122 SCt 1066 (2002) (holding that services performed by lawyer before being admitted pro hac vice constituted

unauthorized practice) In re Murgatroyd 741 NE2d 719 720-21 (Ind 2001) (holding written solicitations to

accident victims by out-of-state attorneys constituted the unauthorized practice of law in Indiana) In re Ferrey 774

A2d 62 69 (RI 2001) Admissions Ruling Limits Pro Hac Vice Status and Fees for Out-of-State Attorney 17

Laws Man on Prof Conduct (ABABNA) 416 (July 18 2001) (denying fees for services out-of-state attorney

provided in Rhode Island administrative proceedings with the approval of the agency) cf Estate of Condon 76 Cal

Rptr 2d 922 925-26 (Cal Ct App 1998) (allowing out-of-state probate lawyer to recover fees because Birbrower

allows lawyers to recover fees for services nonlawyers may legally perform and Californias probate code allows

out-of-state lawyers to render services to a California estate) In re Opinion 33 of Comm on Unauthorized Practice

of Law 733 A2d 478 486 (NJ 1999) (limiting a New Jersey ethics opinion that had held attorneys not admitted in

New Jersey to be engaging in unauthorized practice when they advised governmental bodies regarding the issuance


ldquoare likely to revive the multi disciplinary debate inthe not-too-distant futurerdquo51

g Nationalization of US Law Practice

i Today for the most part states regulate the practiceof law within that state

ii Commonly lawyers advise and represent clients withdealings in multiple states State regulation of legalpractice has not kept up with business realities52

iii Today it is unclear how much contact a New Yorklawyer can have with a California client before shecrosses the line into the unlicensed practice of law inCalifornia In a 1998 decision the California Supreme53

of state and municipal bonds) Edward J Cleary Crossing State Lines Multi jurisdictional Practice 57 Bench amp B

of Minn (Oct 2000) at 29 29-30 (2000) (canvassing different state positions on practice by out-of-state attorneys)

See F Zacharias the Future Structure and Regulation of Law Practice Confronting Lies Fictions and False

Paradigms in Legal Ethics Regulation 44 Ariz L Rev 829 59 (2002)

949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55


Court threw into doubt the legitimacy of a practicethat most lawyers previously had taken for granted ndashthat they could advise out-of-state clients as long asthey worked in conjunction with an in-state lawyer

(1) In Birbrower a New York law firmrepresented a California corporation innegotiating a settlement of an arbitration claiminvolving events that occurred in Californiaand governed by California law

(2) The company later sued the firm formalpractice and the firm counterclaimed in aneffort to recover its fees The trial courtconcluded that (1) Birbrower was ldquonotadmitted to the practice of law in Californiardquo(2) Birbrower ldquodid not associate Californiacounselrdquo (3) Birbrower ldquoprovided legalservices in this staterdquo and (4) ldquoThe law is clearthat no one may recover compensation forservices as an attorney in this state unless he orshe was a member of the state bar at the timethose services were performedrdquo The54

California Supreme Court affirmed the lowercourts decision though it acknowledgedldquotension between interjurisdictionalpractice and the need to have a state-regulatedbarrdquo The court held that the ldquoplain meaningrdquo55

of Californias unauthorized practice rulesrequired the court to sanction eventransactional practice by out-of- state lawyerswithin the state

Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 55 Since the initial promulgation of Model Rule 55 in 200256

40 states courts (and the District of Columbia) have adopted Model Rule 55 or a rule similar to itA Davis

Regulation of the Legal Profession in the United States and the Future of Global Law Practice 19 No 2 Prof Law

1 10 (2009)




iv In 2002 the ABA changed its Model Rules to enablemulti-jurisdictional practice of law These new rulesallow lawyers more flexibility in ldquotemporarilyrdquopracticing law in other jurisdictions by permittinglawyers to cross state lines temporarily in order topractice law involving transactional matters (ie notinvolving litigation before a state court) that areincidental to the lawyers practices in the jurisdictionwhere they are admitted For example a transactionalattorney can provide legal services out-of state aslong as the services are ldquoreasonably related to thelawyers practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyeris admitted to practicerdquo56

v The law is similar in its treatment of non-Americanlawyers who wish to practice in the United StatesMany states allow foreign lawyers to take the barexam after completing an advanced law degree orLLM in American Law at an accredited law schoolwithin the United States Foreign lawyers are stillsubject to the state-by-state regulatory systemhowever and thus may need to sit for multiple barexaminations in order to practice law in more thanone jurisdiction57

h Globalization

i Consider the following expression by a leadingcommentator of the globalization of US law practice

ldquoin significant part because of the changesthat are likely to flow in the way legal


19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)


services are delivered in England under thepurview of the new regulatory systemwithin the next decade the large US-basedlaw firms and their corporate clients aregoing to be at a growing competitivedisadvantage They are likely to believe thatunless a satisfactory way is found to permitinnovative--competitive--business modelsfor the US-based firms London mayreplace New York as the world headquartersfor legal services They will not be happyabout this fact and some of these firms arelikely to take some sort of actionrdquo58

ii Antony Davis a New York lawyer and leadingcommentator on legal ethics and law practice arguesthat big law firms will need to remain competitivewith the London law firms and thus have fourstrategies available

(1) Approach the courts in all of the states (orinitially in the states where the principalcommercial centers are located) and seekagreement that they and their constituentindividual lawyers should be separatelyregulated on some form of national basisoutside the existing structure

(2) Ask state legislatures to enact laws that wouldpermit the kinds of business structures thatwill arise under the Legal Services Act

(3) Go to Congress and demand legislation thatwould create a national or federal regulatorystructure at least of the large firms if not thelegal profession as a whole

Id59


(4) ldquoRestructurerdquo themselves so that they can saythat they are (technically) in compliance withUS laws even though their London office hastaken advantage of the English changes Or asa variation on this approach they may decideto simply flaunt the US rules with theexpectation that if their lawyers are disciplinedor challenged they will argue that the currentUS regulatory rules are invalid59

6 CONCLUSIONS

a The issue of multi-disciplinary Practice (MDP) is raising itshead again The liberalization of law practice in Englandand Australia will energize the US debate over the future ofthe US legal profession Whether or not MDPs are the bestinterest of Texas lawyers or most Texas lawyers is far fromcertain

b The pace of technological change is rapid and increasingand will impact small and big law firms and their practices

c Generational change is going to occur in the next ten yearsThe implications of the departure of the baby boomgeneration are profound

d A powerful force for change is money There is no doubtthat large amounts of money will support the move towardliberalization of the US legal profession Will this beenough


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources

R Anello Preserving the Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege Here andAbroad 27 Penn St Intrsquol L Rev 291 (2008)

L Bierman amp M Hitt The Globalization of Legal Practice in the InternetAge 14 Ind J Global Legal Stud 29 (2006)

A Davis Regulation of the Legal Profession in the United States and theFuture of Global Law Practice 19 No 2 Prof Law 1 (2009)

J Hamm Ethical Considerations Relating to Outsourcing of Legal Servicesby Law Firms to Foreign Service Providers Perspectives from the UnitedStates 27 Penn St Intl L Rev 323 (2008)

G Hazard Regulatory Controls on Large Law Firms a ComparativePerspective 44 Ariz L Rev 593 (2002)

G Hazard Imputed Conflicts of Interest in International Law Practice 30Okla City U L Rev 489 (2005)

L Terry The Legal World Is Flat Globalization and its Effect on LawyersPracticing in Non-global Law Firms 28 Nw J Intl L amp Bus 527 (2008)

F Zacharias The Future Structure and Regulation of Law PracticeConfronting Lies Fictions and False Paradigms in Legal EthicsRegulation 44 Ariz L Rev 829 834 (2002)

Secondary Resources

C Andrews Standards of Conduct for Lawyers an 800-year Evolution57 SMU L Rev 1385 (2004)

M Ariens American Legal Ethics in an Age of Anxiety 40 St Marys LJ343 (2008)


L Etherington Ethical Codes and Cultural Context Ensuring Legal Ethicsin the Global Law Firm 14 Ind J Global Legal Stud 95 (2007)

J Fishcher External Controls Over the American Bar 19 Geo J LegalEthics 59 (2006)

J Flood Lawyers Law Firms and the Stabilization of TransnationalBusiness 28 Nw J Intl L amp Bus 489 (2008)

J Flood Lawyers as Sanctifiers the Role of Elite Law Firms inInternational Business Transactions 14 Ind J Global Legal Stud 35 (2006)

Marc Galanter amp Thomas Palay Tournament of Lawyers theTransformation of the Big Law Firm 99-102 (1991)

M Galanter The Hundred-year Decline of Trials and the Thirty YearsWar 57 Stan L Rev 1255 (2005)

P LeGoff Global Law a Legal Phenomenon Emerging from the Process ofGlobalization 14 Ind J Global Legal Stud 119 (2007)

M Raymond The Professionalization of Ethics 33 Fordham Urb LJ 153(2005)

T Schneyer Introduction the Future Structure and Regulation of LawPractice 44 Ariz L Rev 521 (2002)

L Terry Transnational Legal Practice 43 Intl Law 943 (2009)

S Williams amp D Nersessian Overview of the Professional ServicesIndustry and the Legal Profession (Harvard Law School Center onLawyers 2007)

C Whelan The Paradox of Professionalism Global Law Practice MeansBusiness 27 Penn St Intl L Rev 465 (2008)

F Zacherias amp B Green Federal Court Authority to Regulate Lawyers aPractice in Search of a Theory 56 Vand L Rev 1303 (2003)



ABA Commission on Ethics 2020Preliminary Issues Outline

November 19 2009

Introduction

In the United States the highest court of each state and the District ofColumbia has the authority to regulate lawyers within its borders In 1908the American Bar Association concerned with the standards of the legalprofession and the low esteem in which it was held by the general publicpromulgated the Canons of Professional Ethics a set of aspirationalprinciples for law practice that the states were free to and in the majorityof cases did adopt The latter half of the 20th Century saw thepromulgation by the ABA of successively less aspirational and morerule-based models of professional regulation ndash the 1969 Model Code ofProfessional Responsibility and the 1983 Model Rules of ProfessionalConduct as periodically amended (the ldquoModel Rulesrdquo) All states exceptCalifornia have adopted the Model Rules with some variations althoughCalifornia has adopted selected language from the Model Rules

As the national leader in developing and interpreting standards of legalethics and professional regulation the ABA endeavors to ensure that theModel Rules keep pace with societal change and the evolution of thepractice of law and that other sources of professional regulation includingcourt rules and statutes do so as well The accelerating pace oftechnological innovation and the increase in globalized law practice raiseserious questions about whether existing ethical rules and regulatorystructures adequately address the realities and challenges of 21st Centurylaw practice With respect to technology the profession faces not merelythe proliferation of personal computing e-mail ldquosmart-phonerdquotechnology enhanced personal digital assistants and the internet but thelikelihood that on the horizon is a potential new or second internet as wellas technologies that cannot now be fully anticipated As for globalizationalready the profession is encountering the competitive and ethicalimplications of US lawyers and law firms seeking to represent Americanand foreign clients abroad and foreign lawyers seeking access to the USlegal market


In August 2009 ABA President Carolyn B Lamm created the ABACommission on Ethics 2020 The Commission is to conduct a plenaryreview and assessment of the Model Rules and other sources of lawyerregulation in the context of the aforementioned trends including legalpractice developments in other countries The Commissionrsquos work will beguided by three principles protecting the public preserving coreprofessional values of the American legal profession and maintaining astrong independent and self-regulated profession1The Commission will work transparently and collaboratively and willpromote education on these subjects for the legal profession and thepublic The Commission will engage the judiciary the bar (including statelocal international and specialty bar associations) and the public inframing issues for consideration and enlist their support in craftingsuitable recommendations that will benefit clients and the publicstrengthen the ability of the legal profession to meet the challenges facingit and maintain those core principles that guide its work TheCommission has a website wwwabanetorgethics2020 and a generaldiscussion list serve that interested individuals can subscribe to via thewebsite Notice of the Commissionrsquos meetings public hearingsroundtables and educational programs is also available on the website

Of particular note is the breadth of this project The Commission willfocus on ethical and regulatory issues affecting the entire spectrum oflegal work -- from what some call ldquoBig Lawrdquo to individualquintessentially local practice (eg criminal defense wills andmatrimonial law) At its first meeting on September 24-25 2009 theCommission began to identify critical issues Subject to continuingmodification and possible additions the Commission identified threeoverlapping areas of inquiry (1) issues that arise because US lawyers areregulated by states but work increasingly across state and internationalborders (2) issues that arise in light of current and future advances intechnology that enhance virtual cross-border access and (3) particularethical issues raised by changing technology A detailed preliminaryoutline follows this Introduction

Preliminary Issues

Initially the Commission has identified the following issues for consideration andstudy This ldquoissues outlinerdquo is preliminary only and will continue to evolve TheCommission expects that during its tenure the number and nature of the subjects onthis outline will change as the work progresses The use of this format and particular


phraseology is not intended to connote any prioritization of or position on the issues

identified below nor is consideration of omitted issues intended to beforeclosed The Commission welcomes and encourages constructivecomments and suggestions on the current version of this document andon future iterations

1 Issues That Arise Because US lawyers are Regulated by States butWork Increasingly Across State and International Borders

a Regulations Governing Admission to Practice

i Admission of US Lawyers to Practice in Other Countries

(1) The Commission will study approaches adopted inrepresentative foreign jurisdictions with respect toadmission of lawyers from outside those jurisdictionsgenerally and US lawyers in particular

ii Admission of Foreign Lawyers to Practice in the US

(1) Model Rule 55 (c) which authorizes multi-jurisdictional

practice of law by US lawyers does not include temporary

practice by foreign lawyers

(a) The ABA adopted a separate Model Rule for Temporary

Practice by Foreign Lawyers

(b) Most jurisdictions that have adopted Model Rule 55have not however adopted the corollary foreigntemporary practice rule

(c) Should the ABA amend Model Rule 55 to includelawyers from outside the US

(d) Should the scope of authority be the same for them asfor US lawyers

(2) The ABA does not currently have a policy regarding

practice and registration of foreign lawyers practicing in-

house in the US


(a) Should the ABA adopt such a policy

(3) Should the ABA adopt a Model Rule for Pro Hac Vice

Admission of Foreign Lawyers

b What are the Pros and Cons of Proposals for State-Based NationalLicensure

i Outsourcing

(1) Legal process outsourcing is increasing both in amount and

in the sophistication of the outsourced work Are there

ethical issues or other policy positions that the Commission

should explore regarding outsourcing that are not

addressed in Formal Opinion 08-451 of the StandingCommittee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility

c Conflicts of Interest

i The Current Model Rules

(1) In view of the trends of substantial growth in law firm size

mergers and consolidations of such firms and the

emergence of many ldquoglobalrdquo law firms Model Rule 17

(Conflict of InterestmdashCurrent Clients) should be re-

examined In many instances this Rule is more stringent

than other countriesrsquo conflicts rules While some caselawand secondary authority may recognize that it isappropriate to have different standards for sophisticatedclients than for clients who rarely use lawyers theCommission will examine whether and how this can andshould be translated into ABA policy

(2) In the same context of growth and globalization of lawfirms the Commission will study the utility and ongoingfeasibility of imputed disqualification rules such as ModelRule 110

(3) Best Practices


(a) How have multinational firms coped with the issuespresented by the current Model Rules and theregulatory disparities among nations in which theypractice For example what contractual choice oflaw and choice of forum approaches are they using

d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16

(1) US confidentiality rules based on Model Rule 16generally allow lawyers to disclose confidentialinformation in certain circumstances both with andwithout their clientsrsquo permission Model Rule 16 differs

from rules in other countries where in some instances

lawyers are forbidden to make disclosures even with client

consent

(a) Other countriesrsquo rules may require disclosure incircumstances when Model Rule 16 requiresconfidentiality

(b) Other laws such as European Union privacy and dataprotection regimes also have an impact on lawyerconfidentiality How can these differences beaddressed for those lawyers or firms that practiceacross international borders

(2) Similar variations have from time to time bedeviledwholly US practice where lawyers are admitted or lawfirms practice in multiple states in which the applicableversions of Rule 16 impose differing and sometimesirreconcilable obligations

(3) Inadvertent Disclosure and Waiver

(a) In the United States there are unresolved issuesregarding inadvertent disclosure and waiver ofprivilege


(b) Given varying rules in other countries the problemsof inadvertent disclosure and waiver of privilege maybe exacerbated

e Choice of Law

i Does Model Rule 85 which was written with domestic USpractice most in mind adequately address global legalpractice

(1) Should it be made clear (where it may now beambiguous) that Rule 85 applies equally to foreignlawyers who permissibly or not render legal services inthe US

ii Alternative Business Structures

(1) Alternative business structures (eg law practices with non-

lawyer managersowners multi-disciplinary practices orincorporated or publicly traded law firms) in othercountries raise ethical and regulatory questions for USlawyers and law firms of all sizes employed associatedor otherwise doing business with these entities and theirclients

(2) How are US law firms and lawyers coping with theseconcerns

(a) Do the Model Rules need to be amended to takeaccount of those structures

(b) Alternatively are there best practices that theCommission should recommend

(3) How can core principles of client and public protection besatisfied while simultaneously permitting US lawyersand law firms to participate on a level playing field in aglobal legal services marketplace that includes theincreased use of one or more forms of alternative businessstructures


f Law Firm or Entity Regulation

i With the exception of New York and New Jersey USjurisdictions regulate individual lawyers not law firms

(1) The concept of regulating law firms (in addition toregulating individual lawyers) is being embraced in othercountries as a method of increasing client and publicprotection

(2) With US lawyers and law firms increasingly engaging inmulti-jurisdictional practice on an interstate andinternational basis should the US model be revised toprovide for entity regulation and discipline

(3) Are there good reasons to do so even without regard toexperience abroad

ii Other countries have developed more proactive (as opposedto reactive) systems of lawyer and law firm regulation as ameans of increasing client and public protection andaccountability for law firms that have non-lawyer owners or

managers multi-disciplinary practices or public shareholders

(eg Australia)

(1) Should a similar model be considered for the UnitedStates regardless of how the question whether or not topermit alternative business structures is resolved

g International Arbitration

i Do the Model Rules adequately address ethical issues relatingto international arbitration

(1) What for example should be the ethical rules that governa US lawyer engaged in an arbitral proceeding in another

country where the governing law is not US law


(2) Should it matter whether the lawyerrsquos client is or is not aUS person or entity

2 Issues That Arise in Light of Current and Future Advances inTechnology That Enhance Virtual Cross-Border Access

a Whether the Model Rules Unnecessarily Impede a Lawyer or LawFirmrsquos Ability to Employ New Technologies in RepresentingClients

i The Commission will study ways in which technology enableslawyers and law firms to represent clients in a multi-jurisdictional practice better or in a more efficient orcost-effective manner that may be precluded or inhibited bythe Model Rules in their current form

b Protection of Clients

i Virtual law firmsrdquo are emerging with increased frequency Intheory the lawyers who participate in such arrangements areskilled experienced and competent

(1) Do existing UPL ethics and disciplinary rules adequatelyaddress this new practice paradigm

ii The Commission will study whether there should be differentstandards applicable to providing advice on law that isuniform nationwide such as federal or international law

(1) For example lawyers and law firms in Washington DCroutinely advise clients in all 50 states and in othercountries on US federal law such as tax securitiesbanking and antitrust

(2) Should it make a difference whether the lawyer or lawfirm maintains an office in the other states or countries

iii Social Networking ldquoUnbundlingrdquo and ldquoOpensourcingrdquo ofLegal Services


(1) Do the Model Rules and existing disciplinary enforcementmechanisms adequately address the use of socialnetworking sites by lawyers and law firms

(2) Unbundled legal services providers are proliferating andclients are increasingly using these services Do existingethical and disciplinary enforcement rules adequatelyprotect clients in this context

(3) What are the ethical implications of ldquoopen-sourcingrdquo(on-line services that provide free forms or other legalinformation or legal advice)

(4) What are the ethical implications of lawyers sharing workproduct on-line (sometimes referred to as ldquopeer topeerrdquo)6

iv Lawyer Accountability and Accessibility of PublicInformation

(1) Given an increasingly technology-driven and multi-jurisdictional law practice reality how can the ABAencourage increased transparency about lawyers andlegal services For example

(2) Should the ABA National Lawyer Regulatory Data Bankinclude public regulatory actions related to non-USlawyers

(3) Should all state lawyer disciplinary agencies andor statebar associations make information about public lawyerregulatory actions available on the Internet

(4) Would doing so lead to litigation brought by lawyerswhose practices are adversely affected

(5) Does existing law adequately protect the public when thepublic uses web sites that provide assessments or ratingsof individual lawyersrsquo and law firmsrsquo capabilities


(6) Should the ABA recommend that other countries createclient protection funds

c Particular Ethical Issues Raised by Changing Technology

i Access to Justice

(1) Do advances in technology increase or enhance theopportunities for lawyers and law firms to improve accessto justice

(2) Can technology ameliorate the availability of affordablelegal services to underserved segments of the public

(3) If so what type of regulation of those services isappropriate

ii Competence

(1) Does the rapid pace of technological evolution raise issuesrelating to lawyer competence

iii Data Security and Confidentiality Issues

(1) The Commission will investigate whether there is orshould be a professional obligation to understand and touse new technologies and new applications reasonably

(a) For example how does a lawyerrsquos obligation to avoidinadvertent disclosure of confidential or privilegedinformation apply to the phenomenon of ldquocloudcomputingrdquo where the lawyer or law firm no longermaintains physical possession of or exercises controlover the server that holds such information

(2) How does technology accentuate or ameliorate the risksand consequences of inadvertent disclosure ofconfidential andor privileged information (egmetadata and other document integrity issues)


(a) Do the Model Rules adequately address these issuesand those that can be anticipated fromnext-generation technology

(3) What are the implications of advances in technology fordata retention policies and procedures

(4) Do the Model Rules and existing ethics opinionsadequately protect clients from inappropriate use bylawyers of available technologies (eg the use of cellulartelephones in public locations blogging Tweeting or theindiscriminate use of the ldquoreply allrdquo function in e-mail)

iv Jurisdictional Issues

(1) What difficulties do technological advances create forlawyers law firms and regulators in terms of establishinga jurisdictional nexus for the application of ethical anddisciplinary rules

(2) Does technology present opportunities for lawyers andlaw firms to reduce or increase the risk that they willcome under the jurisdiction

No one from Texas is on the Ethics 2020 Commission60


ROSTER AND BIOGRAPHY OF ETHICS 2020 COMMISSIONMEMBERS60

Commission Co-Chairs

Jamie S Gorelick ( Washington DC) is a partner at WilmerHale whereshe co-chairs the Defense National Security and Government ContractsPractice Group and chairs the Public Policy and Strategy Practice GroupMs Gorelick was one of the longest serving Deputy Attorneys General ofthe United States the second highest position in the Department of JusticeIn that role she supervised the litigation and law enforcement divisions ofthe Department including the United States Attorneys Offices MsGorelick arrived at Justice from the Department of Defense where shewas General Counsel One of Washingtons best-known litigators MsGorelick has represented corporations and individuals in a wide array ofproblems particularly in the regulatory and enforcement arenas Sheserved as President of the District of Columbia Bar from 1992 to 1993

Ms Gorelick was a member of the bipartisan National Commission onTerrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 911 Commission) Shealso was a member of the CIAs National Security Advisory PanelPresident Bushs Review of Intelligence Committee and PresidentClintons Advisory Committee to the Presidential Commission on CriticalInfrastructure Protection (which she co-chaired) among others She serveson the boards of the John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation theUrban Institute the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and theCarnegie Endowment for International Peace She is a member of theCouncil on Foreign Relations

A frequent lecturer on corporate governance and business ethics MsGorelick has authored numerous scholarly articles and co-authored aleading treatise on the maintenance of corporate documents Destructionof Evidence (Wiley 1983) She taught trial advocacy at the Harvard LawSchool and has been a guest lecturer at universities across the country Shewas a member of Harvards Board of Overseers and its Overseers VisitingCommittee to Harvard Law School She was the 2004 Raytheon Lectureron Business Ethics at Bentley College Ms Gorelick is a member of theBest Lawyers Board of Advisors


Michael Traynor ( Berkeley CA) is President Emeritus and Chair of theCouncil of the American Law Institute Mr Traynor also is a Fellow of theAmerican Academy of Arts amp Sciences the American Academy ofAppellate Lawyers the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers andthe American Association for the Advancement of Science In 2004 hereceived the John P Frank Outstanding Lawyer Award from the USCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Since retiring in 2008 fromprivate law practice in San Francisco (where he was President of the BarAssociation of San Francisco) he devotes much of his time to public lawand law reform issues Currently in addition to chairing the ALI Counciland being a member of the ABA House of Delegates he serves as anadviser to the ALIs projects on world trade and on restitution and unjustenrichment and on a copyright law reform project He is a member of theboards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law theDevelopmental Studies Center and the Berkeley Community Fund theAdvisory Board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the NationalWildlife Federations Presidents Advisory Council He also served on theboards of the Environmental Law Institute the Sierra Club Legal DefenseFund now Earthjustice (which he also served as chairman president andtreasurer) and Sierra Legal Defence of Canada now Ecojustice MrTraynor received his BA (in economics) from the University of Californiaat Berkeley his JD from the Harvard Law School and an honoraryDoctor of Laws degree from the University of South Carolina He servedas an adjunct lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley School ofLaw and has contributed over 100 articles and comments to law reviewsand other professional publications

Commission Members

Stephen Gillers ( New York NY) has been Professor of Law at the NewYork University School of Law since 1978 He served as Vice Dean from1999-2004 He holds the Emily Kempin chair He focuses most of hisresearch and writing on the regulation of the legal profession His coursesinclude Regulation of Lawyers Evidence Media Law (with Stuart Karle)and Law and Literature (with graduate school dean Catharine Stimpson)Professor Gillers has written widely on legal and judicial ethics in lawreviews and in the legal and popular press He has taught legal ethics as avisiting professor at other law schools and has spoken on lawyerregulatory issues at hundreds of events in the US Europe and Asiaincluding at federal and state judicial conferences before Congress law


firms corporate general counselsrsquo offices government law offices ABAmeetings and state and city bar meetings Professor Gillers is the authorof Regulation of Lawyers Problems of Law and Ethics a widely used lawschool casebook first published by Little Brown (now Aspen) in 1985 andnow in its 8 th edition (2009) With Professor Roy Simon (and as of 2008also Professor Andrew Perlman) he has edited Regulation of LawyersStatutes and Standards published annually by Little Brown then Aspensince 1989 He was chair of the Policy Implementation Committee of theABAs Center for Professional Responsibility from 2004-2008 and remainsa member He is also a member of the International Issues Committee ofthe ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the BarFollowing a clerkship with Chief Judge Gus J Solomon in Federal DistrictCourt in Portland Oregon Professor Gillers practiced law for nine yearsin various settings in New York City before joining the NYU Law Schoolfaculty He is often quoted on issues of legal ethics in the legal andpopular media

Jeffrey B Golden ( London United Kingdom) is Special US Counsel inthe London office of international law firm Allen amp Overy LLP He joinedthe firm as a partner in 1994 after 15 years with the leading Wall Streetpractice of Cravath Swaine amp Moore He is a Past Chair of the AmericanBar Associations Section of International Law co-chair of its FinancialEngineering for Economic Development (FEED) and InternationalCriminal Court task forces and a former co-chair of its InternationalSecurities and Capital Markets and US Lawyers Practicing AbroadCommittees Mr Golden is a Life Fellow of the American Bar FoundationHe also serves on the Commission on the World Justice Project on theSteering Committee of the ABAUNDP International Legal ResourceCenter and as Section of International Law Liaison to the ABA FinancialMarkets Regulatory Reform Task Force

Mr Golden studied at Duke University the London School of Economicsand Political Science and the Columbia University School of Law fromwhich he received his JD degree with honors in 1978 He is GeneralEditor of the Capital Markets Law Journal (Oxford University Press) amember of the Editorial Board of Derivatives Use Trading amp Regulationand a trustee of the International Bar Association Foundation He is amember of the International Advisory Board of the Columbia Law Schoolthe Duke Global Capital Markets Center Advisory Board the World Legal


Forum Advisory Board and the Joint Editorial Board for InternationalLaw of the Uniform Law Commission

George W Jones Jr ( Washington DC) is a partner with Sidley AustinLLP Since joining the firm in 1983 Mr Jones has represented clients incomplex commercial and regulatory litigation involving substantive areassuch as antitrust contracts employment discrimination energyenvironmental law fair lending labor healthcare policy and productsliability Mr Jones also advises law firms and in-house law departmentson questions of professional responsibility including state rules ofprofessional conduct and federal reporting obligations prescribed by theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to sect 307 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 He has handled internal corporateinvestigations of employee fraud and embezzlement and related civil andadministrative proceedings In addition to federal and state court andadministrative proceedings Mr Jones has participated in alternativedispute resolution proceedings including both arbitration and mediation

Prior to joining the firm Mr Jones was a law clerk to Judge Philip WTone of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Healso served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States fortwo years during which time he argued five cases on behalf of the federalgovernment before the United States Supreme Court

Hon Elizabeth B Lacy ( Richmond VA) is a Senior Justice on theSupreme Court of Virginia (as of August 2007) and has served on theCourt since 1989 She also serves as a mediator with The McCammonGroup (2007- present) and as the John Marshall Professor of JudicialStudies at the University of Richmond School of Law (2008- present) Priorto her judicial service Justice Lacy worked as a lawyer for the TexasLegislative Council (1969-1972) served as Assistant Attorney General andDivision Chief for the Texas Attorney Generalrsquos Office (1972-1976) and asDeputy Attorney General Judicial Affairs Division (1982-1985) She alsoworked for the Virginia State Corporation Commission (1985-1989)

Justice Lacy received her BA from Saint Maryrsquos College (1966) JD fromthe University of Texas Law School (1969) and an LLM from theUniversity of Virginia School of Law (1992) She has held numerouspositions within the Virginia State Bar including chairing its Board ofGovernors She chaired the ABA Section of Legal Education and


Admissions to the Bar served on the ABA Task Force on InternationalTrade in Legal Services was a member of the Advisory Board for ABACentral and East European Law Initiatives and was a member of the ABAJudicial Division Appellate Judges Conferencersquos Executive CommitteeShe is a member of the National Association of Women Judges theVirginia Womenrsquos Attorney Association the American Judicature Societythe American Law Institute and the Lewis Powell Inn of Court She also isa member of the Board of Directors St Maryrsquos College AlumnaeAssociation and a former member of the Education Committee of theVirginia Judicial Conference Justice Lacy is a former Board of Directorsmember of the Women Judges Fund for Justice and she chaired theUniversity of Virginia Advisory Committee for its Masters of Law in theJudicial Process

Judith A Miller ( San Francisco CA) is a Senior Vice President of theBechtel Group its General Counsel and a member of the Board ofDirectors Prior to joining the Bechtel Group in 2006 she was a partnerwith Williams amp Connolly LLP Her practice there included a wide rangeof complex civil litigation and business-related criminal litigationcorporate and individual officer counseling internal investigations andissues affecting the defense industry She returned to the firm in January2000 after having been the then longest serving General Counsel of theUS Department of Defense (1994-99) Ms Miller is a Yale Law Schoolgraduate and clerked for Associate Justice Potter Stewart and JudgeHarold Leventhal She is a past chair of the American Bar AssociationrsquosSection of Litigation serves on the Executive Committee of the AtlanticCouncil of the United States and is a trustee of Beloit College Ms Milleris a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and NationalSecurity the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in theInformation Age and the National Academy of Sciences Committee onScience Security and Prosperity She is a recipient of the US Departmentof Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service and the Bronze Palm tothat Medal She was named the Womenrsquos Bar Association of the District ofColumbia Woman Lawyer of the Year

Hon Kathryn A Oberly ( Washington DC) was appointed to theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2009 by President George WBush She attended Vassar College from 1967 to 1969 and aftertransferring to the University of Wisconsin earned her BA in PoliticalScience (with Honors) in 1971 In 1973 she received her law degree cum


laude from the University of Wisconsin Law School where she wasArticles Editor of the Wisconsin Law Review

Judge Oberly served as a law clerk to the late Honorable Donald P Lay ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and later movedto the District of Columbia where she served as an appellate lawyer in theLand and Natural Resources Division of the US Department of Justiceand then as an Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States Sheentered private practice in 1986 as a partner in the Washington DC officeof Mayer Brown amp Platt In 1991 she joined Ernst amp Youngrsquos Washingtonoffice as an Associate General Counsel in charge of the firmrsquos appellateand special litigation In 1994 she was appointed Vice Chair and GeneralCounsel of Ernst amp Young a post she held until her appointment to theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Among other civic andprofessional activities Judge Oberly is a member of the Council of theAmerican Law Institute

Roberta Cooper Ramo ( Albuquerque NM) a partner with ModrallSperling concentrates her practice in the areas of mediation arbitrationbusiness law real estate probate and estate planning She has particularexperience in working with large corporations on strategic and long-rangeplanning Mrs Ramo was elected President of the American BarAssociation in 1995-96 the first woman in history to head the worldrsquoslargest organization of lawyers and became the first woman president ofThe American Law Institute in May 2008 In February 2003 the UnitedStates Senate appointed her to co-chair the committee to review and makesuggestions for change of the United States Olympic Committee She isChair of the ABArsquos Rule of Law Initiative serves on panels for theAmerican Arbitration Association the CPR Institute for DisputeResolutions National Panel of Distinguished Neutrals and is a member ofthe Board of Directors of the Santa Fe Opera and of Think New Mexico anon-partisan think tank In 2000 she was made an honorary member ofthe Bar of England and Wales and of Grays Inn She is a Fellow of boththe American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and of the AmericanBar Foundation She served as a Regent of the University of New Mexicofrom 1989-1995 and as President of the Board of Regents from 1991-1993

Herman J Russomanno ( Miami FL) is a partner in the firm ofRussomanno amp Borello PA He graduated magna cum laude and Phi BetaKappa from Rutgers University and received his JD from the Samford


University Cumberland School of Law Mr Russomanno clerked for aUnited States Federal District Court Judge and then served as a law clerkfor an Associate Justice on the Alabama Supreme Court He is BoardCertified as a Civil Trial Lawyer by The Florida Bar and by the NationalBoard of Trial Advocacy and chaired the Florida Bar Civil TrialCertification Committee He has 30 years experience in personalinjurywrongful death medical malpractice class action productsliability and complex commercial litigation

Mr Russomanno is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers theInternational Academy of Trial Lawyers and the International Society ofBarristers He is a past president of The Florida Bar the Florida Board ofTrial Advocates the Dade County Trial Lawyers Association the DadeCounty Bar Association and ABOTA-Miami Chapter He serves in theABA House of Delegates ATLArsquos Board of Governors and on the Board ofthe Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers He is the recipient of the Pursuit ofJustice Award (ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section) the JusticeHarry Lee Anstead Professionalism Award (Dade County Trial LawyersAssociation) the BJ Masterson Award for Professionalism (Academy ofFlorida Trial Lawyers) and the Florida Trial Lawyer of the Year(American Board of Trial Advocates) He has continually been selected inthe Best Lawyers in America in both personal injury and commercial lawand has been an adjunct professor of law teaching trial advocacy since1984

Theodore J Schneyer ( Tucson AZ) is the Milton O Riepe Professor ofLaw at the University of Arizona James E Rogers College of Law Heteaches courses on the legal profession and co-authored a textbook on thesubject entitled The Lawyer in Modern Society (2d ed 1976) Much of hisresearch concerns the regulation of law practice in the United StatesRepresentative articles include ldquoProfessional Discipline for Law Firmsrdquo77 Cornell L Rev 1 (1991) ldquoMultidisciplinary Practice ProfessionalRegulation and the Anti-Interference Principle in Legal Ethics 84 MinnL Rev 1469 (2000) ldquoRegulatory Controls on Large Law Firmsrdquo 43 ArizL Rev 593 (2002) (with G Hazard Jr) ldquoAn Interpretation of RecentDevelopments in the Regulation of Law Practicerdquo 30 Okla City L Rev559 (2005) and ldquoThe Organized Bar and the Collaborative LawMovementrdquo 50 Ariz L Rev289 (2008) Professor Schneyer is a member ofthe ABA and its Center for Professional Responsibility and the CaliforniaState Bar (inactive)


Carole B Silver ( Washington DC) is the Executive Director of theGeorgetown Law Center for the Study of the Legal Profession Her workfocuses on globalization as it relates to legal practice legal education andprofessional regulation Before joining Georgetown Professor Silver wason the faculty of the Northwestern University Law School where shetaught a seminar on globalization and the legal profession as well ascourses on business associations securities regulation and internationalsecurities regulation and comparative corporate governance Earlier sheworked as an associate in the corporate and securities area at Sidley ampAustin and clerked for the late Judge Jesse Eschbach of the US Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit Professor Silverrsquos most recent law reviewarticles focus on globalization strategies of US-based law firmsinternational legal education and the careers of transnational lawyers andthe ethics of outsourcing legal services offshore

Frederic S Ury ( Fairfield CT) is a founding partner of the law firm ofUry amp Moskow LLC in Fairfield Connecticut He earned his JurisDoctorate from Suffolk University 1977 and his BS Degree with highestdistinction from Babson College in 1974 He has been a member of theConnecticut Bar since 1977 and the New York Bar since 1989 He isadmitted in the Federal District Court in Connecticut and New York the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court He is aBoard Certified Civil Trial Lawyer who for 32 years he has concentratedhis practice in criminal and civil trial practice He is a frequent arbitratorand mediator Mr Ury was formerly the Chairman of the LitigationSection of the Connecticut Bar Association and Editor-in-Chief of theLitigation Section Newsletter He was President of the Connecticut BarAssociation in 2004-2005 He is a frequent lecturer to various barassociations around the country on the Future of the Legal Profession andhas lectured about civil procedure to Connecticut attorneys for over 12years He is a member of the Executive Board of the Litigation Section theCivil Rules Committee the Chief Justicersquos Civil Justice Commission ThePublic Trust and Confidence Task Force and the CBA Bench BarCommittee He is presently Co-Chair of the Attorney Trust AccountDefalcation Task Force In 2007 he was elected to the Board of Directors ofthe Connecticut Bar Foundation and has been a member of the JamesCooper Fellows since 2005 Mr Ury has been active for the past 6 years inthe National Conference of Bar Presidents He served three years on theExecutive Council of that organization and is presently Treasurer of the


Council He was a member of the ABA House of Delegates from2004-2009

Hon Gerald W VandeWalle ( Bismarck ND) is Chief Justice of theNorth Dakota Supreme Court Chief Justice VandeWalle is a former firstAssistant Attorney General of North Dakota He has been a member of theNorth Dakota Supreme Court since 1978 and Chief Justice since January 11993 Chief Justice VandeWalle holds a BSC and JD magna cum laudefrom the University of North Dakota where he was editor-in-chief of theNorth Dakota Law Review He is a member of the Order of the Coif Hechaired the North Dakota Judicial Conference from 1985-87 received theNorth Dakota State Bar Association Distinguished Service Award in June1998 served as President of the Conference of Chief Justices from2000-2001 and was appointed by US Supreme Court Chief JusticeRehnquist to the FederalState Jurisdiction Committee of the JudicialConference of the United States Chief Justice VandeWalle also chaired theABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar from2001-2002 and served as Jurist-in-Residence at Georgetown UniversityLaw Center in October 2002 He also was inducted into the Warren EBurger Society in October 2002 Chief Justice VandeWalle is the recipientof the 2003 Paul C Reardon Award the 2008 American Inns of CourtProfessionalism Award for the Eighth Circuit and ABA Section of LegalEducation and Admissions to the Bar 2009 Robert J Kutak Award

Hon Diane P Wood ( Chicago IL) is a Circuit Judge on the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a Senior Lecturer in Law atthe University of Chicago Law School Judge Wood attended theUniversity of Texas at Austin earning her BA in 1971 (highest honors)and her JD in 1975 (Order of the Coif) After graduation from law schoolshe clerked for Judge Irving L Goldberg on the US Court of Appeals forthe Fifth Circuit (1975-76) and for Justice Harry A Blackmun of the USSupreme Court (1976-77) She then spent a brief period at the Office of theLegal Adviser in the US Department of State In 1980 she began hercareer as a legal academic at Georgetown University Law Center Shemoved to the University of Chicago Law School in 1981 serving as afull-time professor until 1995 and as Associate Dean from 1989 through1992 In 1990 she was named to the Harold J and Marion F GreenProfessorship in International Legal Studies becoming the first woman tohold a named chair at the school From 1993 until she was appointed tothe Seventh Circuit in 1995 she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney


General in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice JudgeWood is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts amp Sciences and is onthe Council of the American Law Institute

Liaisons Appointed to the Commission by the ABA President

Donald B Hilliker ( Chicago IL) is of counsel in the Chicago office of thelaw firm of McDermott Will amp Emery LLP He has represented awide-range of clients in complex commercial litigation with a specialemphasis on representation of lawyers and law firms in legal malpracticematters He served from 1978 to 1995 as a member of the Illinois SupremeCourt Committee on Professional Responsibility which drafted theoriginal Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and its successor theIllinois Rules of Professional Conduct He was a member of the ABAStanding Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility from 1997to 2003 and was its chair for two years Most recently he was a member ofthe ABA Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct

He currently is Chair of Coordinating Council of the ABA Center forProfessional Responsibility Mr Hilliker is a member of the American LawInstitute a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation a director and formerpresident of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicagoand an Adjunct Professor of Law at Northwestern University School ofLaw in its trial and ethics in advocacy program

Steven C Krane ( New York NY) a partner at Proskauer Rose LLPconcentrates his practice in representing lawyers and law firms in legalethics and professional liability matters He is Co-Chair of the firmrsquos LawFirm Advisory Practice Group and serves as General Counsel for the700-lawyer firm A 1981 graduate of the New York University School ofLaw he served as law clerk to Judge Judith S Kaye of the New YorkCourt of Appeals from 1984 to 1985 In June 2009 Mr Krane wasappointed by Governor Paterson to the New York State Commission onPublic Integrity He chaired the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics andProfessional Responsibility from 2006 to 2008 and was a member of thatCommittee from 2004 to 2006 He became a member of the ABA Board ofGovernors in August 2009 Mr Krane was President of the New YorkState Bar Association during 2001-02 has chaired its Committee onStandards of Attorney Conduct since 1995 and is the Chair-Elect of the itsInternational Section He also chaired the NYSBA Committee on


Cross-Border Legal Practice and was a member of its Committee onProfessional Ethics from 1990 to 1994 He devoted nine years to the NewYork City Barrsquos Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics includingthree years as Chair from 1993 to 1996 He is a member of the PolicyCommittee of the Bar Issues Commission of the International BarAssociation and is Vice-Chair of the IBA Committee on MultidisciplinaryPractices

From 1996 through 1999 he was a member of the DepartmentalDisciplinary Committee First Judicial Department in New York wherehe served as a Hearing Panel Member and Hearing Panel Chair He hasalso served as Hearing Panel Chair for the Committee on Grievances ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Heis currently a Special Referee for disciplinary cases in the AppellateDivision Second Judicial Department Mr Krane has written and lecturedextensively on attorney ethics issues and taught professionalresponsibility for several years at the Columbia University School of Law

Robert E Lutz ( Los Angeles CA) is a Professor of Law at SouthwesternUniversity School of Law in Los Angeles California where he teachesinternational law international commercial law and internationaldispute-resolution Professor Lutz is past chair (2001-2002) of the ABASection of International Law (SIL) immediate past chair of the AABA TaskForce on International Trade in Legal Services and is Co-chair of theIndo-US Trade Policy Forumrsquos Working Group on Legal Services Herecently served as the ABA representative to the Union Internationale desAvocats (UIA) is a Lifetime Member of the American Law Institute amember of Pacific Council on International Policy (affiliate of the Councilon Foreign Relations) and a Lifetime Fellow of the American BarFoundation He arbitrates public international and private internationalcommercial disputes actively serves on NAFTA bi-national arbitrationpanels and is a listed panelist for the World Trade Organization ProfessorLutz is also a member of the NAFTA Advisory Committee on PrivateCommercial Disputes and of the US State Departmentrsquos AdvisoryCommittee on International Law He received his JD from the Universityof California at Berkeley and his BA from the University of SouthernCalifornia He has done post-graduate work at Columbia UniversitySchool of Law (Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law) theHarvard Law School the University of Munichrsquos Institute for


International Law (as an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ResearchFellow) and MIT

Philip H Schaeffer ( New York NY) has been General Counsel of Whiteamp Case LLP for over ten years and was formerly a senior partner in thefirmrsquos litigation department During his almost fifty years as a practicinglawyer in New York he argued appeals before the highest appellatecourts of New York Connecticut and Delaware and was a lead counsel innumerous trials involving constitutional real estate investmentintellectual property and commercial matters

He is a past and present member of the Committee on Professional andJudicial Ethics of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York(ldquoCitibarrdquo) and its Committee on Professional Responsibility He is also apast and present member of the Professional Ethics Committee of NewYork Lawyersrsquo Association (ldquoNYCLArdquo) and its Ethics Institute He wasrecently appointed to the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics andProfessional Responsibility and to the New York State Bar AssociationrsquosCommittee on Standards of Attorney Conduct (ldquoCOSACrdquo) Mr Schaefferhas participated in numerous programs dealing with the professionalresponsibility of lawyers including those sponsored or held by thePracticing Law Institute Citibar NYCLA and ABA As General Counselof White amp Case Mr Schaeffer acts as supervisor of the Firmrsquosprofessional responsibility training advice and representation involvingover 2000 lawyers and more than 20 countries

Commission Reporter

Keith R Fisher ( Chicago IL) is an honors graduate of PrincetonUniversity and Georgetown University Law Center He was a visitingprofessor at the Franklin Pierce Law Center for the 2008-2009 academicyear and has held teaching appointments at the Northeastern UniversitySchool of Law Suffolk University Law School and Michigan StateUniversity College of Law where he also served as Associate Director(and later Acting Director) of the Institute for Trade in the AmericasActive in bar association activities Professor Fisher is currently the officialliaison from the ABA Business Law Section to the ABA StandingCommittee on Judicial Independence He previously has served asChairman of the Regulatory Enforcement and Director and OfficerLiability Subcommittee of the ABA Banking Law Committee and


Chairman of the ABA Task Force on the Liability of Counsel RepresentingDepository Institutions He was a designated representative of theBusiness Law Section to the ABA Working Group on LawyersRepresentation of Regulated Clients He also served as the OfficialReporter for the Boston Bar Associationrsquos Task Force on CorporateGovernance Since becoming a full-time law professor he has continued toprovide consulting and expert witness services to corporations bankingorganizations consumer groups and law firms

Commission Counsel

Ellyn S Rosen ( Chicago IL) is a Senior Counsel at the American BarAssociation Center for Professional Responsibility She serves asco-counsel to the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Disciplinewhose mission is to assist the judiciary and the bar in the developmentcoordination and strengthening of disciplinary enforcement throughoutthe United States including the assessment of the regulatory ramificationsof global legal practice developments In this capacity she liaises with theConference of Chief Justices National Organization of Bar Counsel andthe Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Ms Rosen alsoserves as co-counsel to the ABA Task Force on International Trade inLegal Services She is a member of the International Bar AssociationrsquosProfessional Ethics Committee and speaks frequently at internationalstate and local bar programs regarding issues relating to the regulation ofthe legal profession

Prior to joining the Center Ms Rosen was a senior litigation counsel withthe Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the SupremeCourt of Illinois She co-chaired the Chicago Bar Associationrsquos YoungLawyers Section Professional Responsibility Committee (1997-1999) andfor the past ten years has served as an investigator and interviewer for theChicago Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Evaluations The Allianceevaluates and rates candidates seeking judgeships in Illinois viaappointment or election In 1989 Ms Rosen received her JD with honorsfrom the Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington Indiana

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64

THE FUTURE OF ETHICS AND LEGAL PROFESSION IN A FLAT WORLD


BIOGRAPHIES



William D Elliott





can and must adapt






1 INTRODUCTION


























2 FAST FACTS


i Median age 48



(1) 2000 1 309(2) 1990 1 310(3) 1980 1 398(4) 1970 1 555(5) 1960 1 675(6) 1950 1 705(7) 1940 1 739












(1) 2008-09 7108(2) 2007-08 7308(3) 2006-07 6954(4) 2005-06 7494









Rev 593 596-597




Id at 20313






















Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64


BIOGRAPHIES



William D Elliott





can and must adapt






1 INTRODUCTION


























2 FAST FACTS


i Median age 48



(1) 2000 1 309(2) 1990 1 310(3) 1980 1 398(4) 1970 1 555(5) 1960 1 675(6) 1950 1 705(7) 1940 1 739












(1) 2008-09 7108(2) 2007-08 7308(3) 2006-07 6954(4) 2005-06 7494









Rev 593 596-597




Id at 20313






















Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64




can and must adapt






1 INTRODUCTION


























2 FAST FACTS


i Median age 48



(1) 2000 1 309(2) 1990 1 310(3) 1980 1 398(4) 1970 1 555(5) 1960 1 675(6) 1950 1 705(7) 1940 1 739












(1) 2008-09 7108(2) 2007-08 7308(3) 2006-07 6954(4) 2005-06 7494









Rev 593 596-597




Id at 20313






















Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64



















2 FAST FACTS


i Median age 48



(1) 2000 1 309(2) 1990 1 310(3) 1980 1 398(4) 1970 1 555(5) 1960 1 675(6) 1950 1 705(7) 1940 1 739












(1) 2008-09 7108(2) 2007-08 7308(3) 2006-07 6954(4) 2005-06 7494









Rev 593 596-597




Id at 20313






















Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64









(1) 2008-09 7108(2) 2007-08 7308(3) 2006-07 6954(4) 2005-06 7494









Rev 593 596-597




Id at 20313






















Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64




Rev 593 596-597




Id at 20313






















Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64













Lawyers) p 6




























Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64




















Id24

































19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64
























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 11 (2009)















i ABA Model Rule 55



















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64

















(1) Bankruptcy

























ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64





















ii Competition








iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64



iii Work Habits























19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64













19 No 2 Prof Law 1 9 (2009)






(2) Competition



























by paragraph (b)
























Rev 465 481 (2008)


































d Outsourcing






(1) Supervision



(2) Competence










(3) Conflict Checks



(4) Confidentiality





(5) Client Consent








Rev 291 (2008)


(7) Other issues

(a) Export Controls














2004















St Intl L Rev 465 474-75 (2008)













2 Prof Law 1 (2009)
































949 P2d at 4 54

949 P2d at 6 55










1 10 (2009)






h Globalization




19 No 2 Prof Law 1 10 (2009)







Id59



6 CONCLUSIONS






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Resources









Secondary Resources




















November 19 2009

Introduction






Preliminary Issues




















house in the US






i Outsourcing















(3) Best Practices



d Confidentiality

i Model Rule 16




consent








e Choice of Law


















(eg Australia)
































i Access to Justice




ii Competence






















Commission Members














































Commission Reporter




Commission Counsel



Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Page 57

Page 58

Page 59

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Page 64

the future: the future of ethics and legal profession …

Documents