DOCSLIB.ORG

Connecticut Bar Association to the Members of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Connecticut Bar Association to the Members of The CONNECTICUT BAR ASSOCIATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS NOTICE OF MEETING The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. at the Quinnipiack Club, 221 Church Street, New Haven, CT. Refreshments at 6 p.m.; dinner at 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of the Minutes of the January 18, 2017 Meeting (Pages 1-2) 2. Report on Committee Sponsored CLE Programs (Deborah Del Prete Sullivan) 3. Report on Proposed Amendment of Rule 8.4 (Stovall) 4. Proposal by Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) to Amend Rules 7.1-7.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a. Draft Comments on APRL Proposal (Stith) (Pages 3-8) b. APRL Proposed Amendments to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 (Pages 9-20) c. 2015 Report of the APRL Regulation of Advertising Committee (Pages 21-59) d. 2016 Supplemental Report of the APRL Regulation of Advertising Committee (Pages 60-66) e. Invitation to Comment on APRL Proposal to Amend ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 (Page 67) 5. Proposed Amendment of Practice Book § 2-32(a)(2) (Conover, Murphy, Rinehart) (Pages 68-72) 6. Other Business 7. Adjourn MINUTES OF A MEETING OF CBA PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE at The Quinnipiack Club, New Haven, January 18, 2017 Chair Stovall opened the meeting at about 6:35 p.m. Present were 15 other members: Benoit, Conover, Dauster, DeRosa, Horowitz, Kaplan, Knierim, Logan, Maurer, Reinhart, Slane, Santucci, Stith, Zaccaro, & Nessler. The minutes of the November 16, 2016 meeting were approved. Ms. Stovall informed the committee about Rule 8.4 happenings, with respect to the amendment that was approved at the last meeting, namely the addition of subsection (7) which proscribed certain harassment and discrimination. Ms. Stovall said that the CBA professional discipline and human rights committees have considered the change and CBA president Frank now hopes to submit the proposed change to the judges in April, after securing approval by the House of Delegates. Ms. Stovall said her impression was that the grievance committee would not be agreeable to this commictee’s suggestion that Practice Book Section 2-32 could be amended to say that any Jisoinlinary action under the new subsection (7) would be withheld until disposition of a timely- 1: rought complaint to a relevant such tribunal. The general consensus was that the committee should not be deterred from presenting such a provision. The committee discussed the newly adopted Continuing Legal Education requirement and verbally explored the extent to which professional ethics committee-related activities of members might be created as activity that helped fulfill the requirement. In discussion, members opined that activity that might qualify at least in part would include preparation and presentation of an opinion; less likely, simply attending a meeting. No specific conclusions were reached. A proposal to revise Rule 5.4 was next considered - namely, an amendment that would enable that “Upon notice to the court, a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a non-profit organization that employed, retained or recommended...the lawyer....” It was pointed out that the proposal is old with respect to ABA Model Rules; that about 30 states have adopted the amendment; and that there is no record of problems. During discussion, it was proposed that the committee had the choice to approve the amendment as proposed, or to propose amending it, e.g., to limit the scope of “non-profit organization.” With respect to concerns raised about possible abuse, it was contended that “Upon notice to the court” would provide protection. On the other hand, it v/as asserted the 95+% of cases settle and are not court-approved. What is a charity, what is “non­ profit organization,” under the federal tax code was discussed. [It appears the term includes other than eleemosynary entities, such as credit unions, debt restructuring organizations, etc.] It was voted with no nays to recommit the opinion for further work to a subcommittee comprised of Messrs. Conover and Logan. A proposal originated by Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) to amend ABA Model Rules 7.1-7.5 was considered. The ABA is seeking comment. A multiplicity of Rule 7 changes would simplify the advertising Rules. Advertising that is false or misleading would be 1 proscribed (as presently), but many of the present Rules’ detailed specifications and commentary would be deleted. Ms. Stith made a number of preliminary comments for the committee’s benefit, pointing out where policy considerations adopted in Connecticut would be, or might be with some amendment, continue to be fulfilled. Touched on in general discussion were contingency fees; “ambulance chasing”; preservation of advertising records; permitting real-time electronic advertising (solicitation); and holding out as “specialist.” The matter was committed to Ms. Stith so she can to prepare for consideration at the next meeting a proposed committee comment to the ABA. The meeting was adjourned at about 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /cgnessler/ Charles N. ssler, Secretary 2 1 1 COMMENTS OF THE CONNECTICUT PROFESSIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE ON 2 APRL PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ABA MODEL RULES 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 3 4 February 15, 2017 5 6 7 The Connecticut Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional Ethics (The 8 Committee”) submits these comments in response to the Proposed Amendments to ABA Model 9 Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5, which the Association of Professional 10 Responsibility Lawyers (“APRL”) has submitted to the American Bar Association for comment 11 and consideration. 12 13 The Committee largely agrees with APRL’s proposal to greatly simplify the ABA’s 14 Model Rules pertaining to lawyer advertising, and with APRL’s goal of “achieving greater 15 rationality and uniformity in regulatory enforcement of lawyer advertising and marketing.” 16 17 We agree with APRL that most of the Model Rule’s advertising provisions should be 18 removed and replaced with a new Model Rule similar to what APRL proposes as Rule 7.1. We 19 also agree that it is important to retain certain limitations on lawyer solicitations and 20 communications with potential clients, as APRL’s proposed Rule 7.2 provides. 21 22 We do urge APRL to consider adding one more provision to APRL’s proposed Rule 7.2. 23 While this particular provision does not appear in present Model Rule 7.3, it is in Connecticut 24 Rule of Professional Responsibility 7.3. Specifically, Connecticut Rule 7.3(b)(5) forbids lawyers 25 from soliciting employment concerning a personal injury or wrongful death claim less than 40 26 days after the accident or other incident has occurred. This per se prohibition is in addition to the 27 prohibition on communications involving coercion, etc. Having a flat ban on solicitations 28 shortly after an accident has occurred (we are not wedded to 40 days; some other jurisdictions 29 have a 30-day limitation) reaches communications that may not be in themselves coercive or 30 harassing, but that should not be undertaken for other reasons, as we explain below. 31 32 We also suggest that an additional sentence (regarding retention of advertisements) be 33 added to the APRL Rule 7.2 commentary, and that two additional sentences (regarding 34 advertisements that mention fees) be added to the APRL Rule 7.1 commentary. 35 36 Before addressing those issues in more detail, the Committee raises one point that may 37 require clarification. The 2015 Report of the APRL Regulation of Lawyer Advertising 38 Committee, issued on June 22, 2015, proposed a new Rule 7.1 in place of Model Rules 7.1, 7.2, 39 7.5. and 7.5. The Report made a strong case for limiting professional discipline for advertising to 40 violations of the general anti-fraud rule, ABA Model Rule 8.4(c). 41 42 However, on April 26, 2016, APRL then issued its 2016 Supplemental Report of the 43 APRL Regulation of Lawyer Advertising Committee (the “Supplemental Report”). The 44 Supplemental Report addressed solicitation and other communications with potential clients, 45 which are subjects covered in Model Rule 7.3. In the words of the Supplemental Report: 46 3 2 47 The [APRL advertising] committee has now . concluded that the legitimate 48 regulatory objectives of preventing overreaching and coercion by lawyers who use in 49 person solicitation and targeted communications with the primary motivation of 50 pecuniary gain can best be achieved by combining provisions of Model Rules 7.2 and 51 7.3 in a single rule [APRL Rule 7.2]. 52 53 APRL’s proposed Model Rule 7.2 retains most of Model Rule 7.3, including the 54 prohibition on solicitations and other communications “involving coercion, duress, or 55 harassment.’’ Presumably, these prohibitions and other provisions of APRL’s proposed Rule 7.2 56 would be enforced directly, and not through Rule 8.4(c), as they do not involve fraud. 57 (Comment 6 to APRL Rule 7.2 comes close to explicitly acknowledging this.) 58 59 We believe that it may be necessary for to clarify whether APRL’s proposal means that 60 lawyers would still be subject to discipline for solicitations and advertisements outside of 61 enforcement of Rule 8.4(c). 62 63 64 I. Comments Concerning Time Limitation on Contacting Accident Victims 65 66 One of the most important changes proposed by the APRL in its Supplemental Report is 67 to eliminate the prohibition on “real-time electronic contact” from present ABA Model Rule 7.3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FLORIDA BAR V. WENT for IT, INC.: SUPREME COURT SUCCUMBS to STATE REGULATION of LAWYER ADVERTISING
    "LET ME REPRESENT YOU!" FLORIDA BAR v. WENT FOR IT, INC.: SUPREME COURT SUCCUMBS TO STATE REGULATION OF LAWYER ADVERTISING Kim Y. Oldham Advertising activity among members of the legal to reach out to individuals through various methods profession has grown more popular as a marketing of advertising.' The issue arises, however, of tool over the past twenty years.' Lawyers no longer whether permitting states to regulate lawyer adver- simply place advertisements in newspapers and the tising constitutes an unwarranted suppression of Yellow Pages.' Now, they rent billboards, send out commercial speech.' mass mailings, and broadcast radio and television Prior to the mid-1970's, the First Amendment of commercials.' In particular, the use of targeted, di- the United States Constitution did not include com- rect-mailings' to individuals known to have an im- mercial speech under its umbrella of protection." It minent legal need substantially increased during the was not until 1976 that the United States Supreme 1980's and continues to be a common medium for Court recognized the informational function of com- lawyer advertising.' mercial speech and granted it constitutional protec- Today, lawyers are becoming more innovative and tion.1" Subsequently in 1977, the Court decided the more aggressive in their attempts to solicit clients. 6 landmark case Bates v. State Bar of Arizona,"' in Consequently, states are becoming more concerned which the Court held that advertising by lawyers with the extent to which lawyers should be allowed should be included in the category of commercial 1 A.B.A. COMM'N ON ADVERTISING, LAWYER ADVERTISING new entrants into the legal profession and for small firms with AT THE CROSSROADS 47 (1995) [hereinafter LAWYER ADVER- low capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Bostonbarjournala Publication of the Boston Bar Association
    FALL 2009 BostonBarJournalA Publication of the Boston Bar Association Timely Justice Threatened by Fiscal Challenges A Move to Streamline the Civil Justice System Crawford Comes to the Lab: Melendez-Diaz and the Scope of the Confrontation Clause Residual Class Action Funds: Supreme Court Identifies IOLTA as Appropriate Beneficiary Challenges and Opportunities for New Lawyers Maintaining Client Confidences: Developments at the Supreme Judicial Court and First Circuit in 2009 If Pro Bono is Not an Option, Consider Volunteering GROW YOUR 401(k) WISELY Six things you won’t hear from other 401(k) providers... We were created as a not-for-profit 1. entity, and we exist to provide a benefit We leverage the buying power of the 2. ABA to eliminate firm expenses and minimize participant expenses Our fiduciary tools help you manage 3. your liabilities and save valuable time Our investment menu has three tiers to 4. provide options for any type of investor, and our average expense is well below the industry average for mutual funds We eliminated commissions, which erode 5. your savings, by eliminating brokers We have benefit relationships with 29 6. state bar and 2 national legal associations.* LEARN HOW No other provider has more than one. YOU CAN * Alabama State Bar Illinois State Bar Association State Bar of Nevada Rhode Island Bar Association GROW YOUR State Bar of Arizona Indiana State Bar Association New Hampshire Bar Association State Bar of Texas Arkansas Bar Association Iowa State Bar Association State Bar of New Mexico Vermont Bar Association
    [Show full text]
  • Bostonbarjournala Publication of the Boston Bar Association
    FALL 2009 BostonBarJournalA Publication of the Boston Bar Association Timely Justice Threatened by Fiscal Challenges A Move to Streamline the Civil Justice System Crawford Comes to the Lab: Melendez-Diaz and the Scope of the Confrontation Clause Residual Class Action Funds: Supreme Court Identifies IOLTA as Appropriate Beneficiary Challenges and Opportunities for New Lawyers Maintaining Client Confidences: Developments at the Supreme Judicial Court and First Circuit in 2009 If Pro Bono is Not an Option, Consider Volunteering GROW YOUR 401(k) WISELY Six things you won’t hear from other 401(k) providers... We were created as a not-for-profit 1. entity, and we exist to provide a benefit We leverage the buying power of the 2. ABA to eliminate firm expenses and minimize participant expenses Our fiduciary tools help you manage 3. your liabilities and save valuable time Our investment menu has three tiers to 4. provide options for any type of investor, and our average expense is well below the industry average for mutual funds We eliminated commissions, which erode 5. your savings, by eliminating brokers We have benefit relationships with 29 6. state bar and 2 national legal associations.* LEARN HOW No other provider has more than one. YOU CAN * Alabama State Bar Illinois State Bar Association State Bar of Nevada Rhode Island Bar Association GROW YOUR State Bar of Arizona Indiana State Bar Association New Hampshire Bar Association State Bar of Texas Arkansas Bar Association Iowa State Bar Association State Bar of New Mexico Vermont Bar Association
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 22 No. 6 Nov/Dec 2009
    Nov/Dec 2009 Volume 22 6 No. Utah Bartm JOURNAL resolve your biggest cases faster and for more money at lower costs www.trialadvocacycenter.com SolutionS For Your Firm “TAC has revolutionized our trial practice. We have used TAC’s facilities and staff to develop big cases from early litigation and discovery to mock trial and resolution.” -Joseph Steele, Steele & Biggs “It’s like producing a T.V. documentary for your client’s case. It really brings dramatic results. Our client gained great insights from witnessing jury deliberations and she felt like she had her day in court.” Mitchell Jensen, Siegfred & Jensen “The finest and most innovative courtroom studio production facility I’ve ever seen” -Norton Frickey, Network Affiliates “The features of the TAC have become essential tools we use to improve our skills, prepare witnesses and experts, and present a more visual and persuasive case for our clients much quicker and less expensively than the traditional methods. It has really enhanced our big cases.” -James McConkie, Parker & McConkie ServiceS overview Remote Video Depositions / Proceedings Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Paperless, high quality video recordings of depositions, Practice or learn trial skills from CLE approved courses and declarations, arbitrations, and mediations. Saves time and satisfy continuing legal education requirements in the process. money and decreases expenditures of time and travel. Video Conferencing / Streaming Jury Focus Groups Record, stream, or video conference any activity in the Observe and learn from live or recorded jury deliberations. courtroom allowing attorneys and witnesses to participate in Discuss what issues are important to the jurors. proceedings from anywhere in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Ethics Opinion 108, Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged
    Formal Opinions Opinion 108 INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 108 Adopted May 20, 2000. Introduction This opinion addresses the ethical obligations of a lawyer who receives from an adverse party or an adverse party’s lawyer documents that are privileged or confidential and that were inadvertently dis- closed, whether in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding or in a context that does not involve liti- gation. This opinion does not purport to address all the situations in which a lawyer receives privileged or confidential documents belonging to a person other than his or her client.1 For purposes of this opinion, “confidential” documents are those that are subject to a legally recognized exemption from discovery and use in a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, even if they are not “privileged” per se.2 Syllabus The ethical obligations of a lawyer who receives from an adverse party or an adverse party’s lawyer documents that are privileged or confidential and that were inadvertently disclosed depends on whether the receiving lawyer knows of the inadvertence of the disclosure before examining the docu- ments. A lawyer who receives documents from an adverse party or an adverse party’s lawyer (“sending lawyer”) that on their face appear to be privileged or confidential has an ethical duty, upon recognizing their privileged or confidential nature, to notify the sending lawyer that he or she has the documents, unless the receiving lawyer knows that the adverse party has intentionally waived privilege and confiden- tiality. Although the receiving lawyer’s only ethical obligation in this situation is to give notice, other con- siderations also come into play, including professionalism and the applicable substantive and procedural law.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION Nationally, approximately 40% of new attorneys work at firms consisting of more than 50 lawyers. Therefore, a large percentage of practicing attorneys work for small firms (fewer than 50 attorneys). Small firms generally do not have formalized recruiting procedures or a set “hiring season” when they recruit summer law clerks, school-year law clerks, or entry-level attorneys. Instead, these firms hire on an as-needed basis, and they hire year round. To secure employment with a small firm, students and lawyers alike need to be proactive in getting their name and interests out in the community. Applicants should not only apply directly to these firms, but they should connect via law school, community, and bar association activities. In this directory, you will find state-by-state hyperlinks to regional directories, bar associations, newspapers, and job banks that can be used to jump-start a small firm search. ALABAMA State/Regional Bar Associations Alabama Bar Association: http://www.alabar.org Birmingham Bar Association: http://www.birminghambar.org Mobile Bar Association: http://www.mobilebar.org Specialty Bar Associations Alabama Defense Lawyers Association: http://www.adla.org Alabama Trial Lawyers Association: http://www.alabamajustice.org Major Newspapers Birmingham News: http://www.al.com/birmingham Mobile Register: http://www.al.com/mobile Legal & Non-Legal Resources & Publications State Lawyers.com: http://alabama.statelawyers.com EINNEWS: http://www.einnews.com/alabama Birmingham Business Journal: http://birmingham.bizjournals.com
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Informational Packet Ancillary & Other Business Arrangements
    Ethics Informational Packet Ancillary & Other Business Arrangements Courtesy of The Florida Bar Ethics Department TABLE OF CONTENTS FLORIDA ETHICS OPINION Page # (Ctrl + Click to link) Ethics Alert: Business Arrangements with Nonlawyers ................................................................. 3 OPINION 02-8 ................................................................................................................................ 6 OPINION 98-1 ................................................................................................................................ 9 OPINION 97-3 .............................................................................................................................. 13 OPINION 95-2 .............................................................................................................................. 16 OPINION 95-1 .............................................................................................................................. 18 OPINION 94-6 .............................................................................................................................. 20 OPINION 92-3 .............................................................................................................................. 22 OPINION 88-15 ............................................................................................................................ 24 OPINION 79-3 .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AAA Roadside Assistance for the Legal Profession: A-Dvances in Technology
    AAA Roadside Assistance for the Legal Profession: A-dvances in Technology, A-rtificial Intelligence, and A-lternative Fee Arrangements September 14, 2020 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. CT Bar Association Webinar CT Bar Institute Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (Ethics) NY: 2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 Ethics; 1.0 D&I) Seminar Materials Sponsored by No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 262 Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism As a lawyer I must strive to make our system of justice work fairly and Where consistent with my client's interests, I will communicate with efficiently. In order to carry out that responsibility, not only will I comply opposing counsel in an effort to avoid litigation and to resolve litigation with the letter and spirit of the disciplinary standards applicable to all that has actually commenced; lawyers, but I will also conduct myself in accordance with the following Principles of Professionalism when dealing with my client, opposing I will withdraw voluntarily claims or defense when it becomes apparent parties, their counsel, the courts and the general public. that they do not have merit or are superfluous; Civility and courtesy are the hallmarks of professionalism and should not I will not file frivolous motions; be equated with weakness; I will endeavor to be courteous and civil, both in oral
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Opinions Related to Technology
    Ethics Informational Packet TECHNOLOGY Courtesy of The Florida Bar Ethics Department Ethics Opinions Related to Technology FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION OPINION 21-2 March 23, 2021 Advisory ethics opinions are not binding. A lawyer ethically may accept payments via a Web-based payment-processing service (such as Venmo or PayPal), including funds that are the property of a client or third person, as long as reasonable steps are taken to protect against inadvertent or unwanted disclosure of information regarding the transaction and to safeguard funds of clients and third persons that are entrusted to the lawyer. RPC: 4-1.1, 4-1.6(a), 4-1.6(e), 4-1.15, 5-1.1(a), (g) I. Introduction The Florida Bar Ethics Department has received several inquiries whether lawyers may accept payment from clients via Web-based payment-processing services such as Venmo and PayPal. This also is an increasingly frequent question on the Bar’s Ethics Hotline. Accordingly, the Professional Ethics Committee issues this formal advisory opinion to provide Florida Bar members with guidance on the topic. Several Web-based, mobile, and digital payment-processing services and networks (“payment-processing services”) facilitate payment between individuals, between businesses, or between an individual and a business. Some are specifically designed for lawyers and law firms (e.g., LawPay and LexCharge), while others are not (e.g., Venmo, PayPal, ApplePay, Circle, and Square). These services operate in different ways. Some move funds directly from the payor’s bank account to the payee’s bank account, some move funds from a payor’s credit card to a payee’s bank account, and some hold funds for a period of time before transferring the funds to the payee.
    [Show full text]
  • Aprl Advertising Report 6-22-15
    ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWYERS 2015 REPORT OF THE REGULATION OF LAWYER ADVERTISING COMMITTEE DRAFT June 22, 2015 ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWYERS REGULATION OF LAWYER ADVERTISING COMMITTEE 2014-2015 MEMBERS AND LIAISONS Mark L. Tuft, Chair George R. Clark Jan L. Jacobowitz Peter R. Jarvis Bruce E. H. Johnson Arthur J. Lachman James M. McCauley DRAFT Ronald D. Rotunda Lynda C. Shely James Coyle, Liaison, National Organization of Bar Counsel Dennis A. Rendleman, Liaison, American Bar Assn. Center for Professional Responsibility 2 | Page Report of the APRL Regulation of Lawyer Advertising Committee I. Executive Summary The rules of professional conduct governing lawyer advertising in effect in most jurisdictions are outdated and unworkable in the current legal environment and fail to achieve their stated objectives. The trend toward greater regulation in response to diverse forms of electronic media advertising too often results in overly restrictive and inconsistent rules that are under-enforced and, in some cases, are constitutionally unsustainable under the Supreme Court’s Central Hudson test. Moreover, anticompetitive concerns, as well as First Amendment issues, globalization of the practice of law, and rapid technology changes compel a realignment of the balance between the professional responsibility rules and the constitutional right of lawyers to communicate with the public. In 2013, the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (“APRL”)1 created the Regulation of Lawyer Advertising Committee to analyze and study the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and various state approaches to regulating lawyer advertising and to make recommendations; the goal being to bring rationality and uniformity in the regulation of lawyer advertising and disciplinary enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Unauthorized Practice of Law
    Unauthorized Practice of Law Revised 2019 Toll Free: (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 Direct: (703) 312-7922 Fax: (703) 312-7966 Email: [email protected] Web: www.fullfaithandcredit.org This document is for informational purposes only. Nothing contained in this document is intended as legal advice to any person or entity. Statutes are constantly changing. Please independently verify the information found in this document. This document was updated with the assistance of 2019 legal intern Hunter Dorwart This project is supported by Grant No. 2016-TA-AX-K052 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMERICAN SAMOA .................................................................................... 3 MONTANA .................................................................................................. 41 ALABAMA .................................................................................................... 3 NEBRASKA ................................................................................................. 41 ALASKA ........................................................................................................ 3 NEVADA ...................................................................................................... 42 ARIZONA ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notice No. M-261-18, Proposed Amendment to D.C. App. R. 46 Relating to Admission Of
    1Dt~trtct of qtolumbta ~ [L IE f~ f cc, qtourt of ~ppeal~ MAY :I l 2018 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. M-261-18 BEFORE: Blackbume-Rigsby, Chief Judge; Glickman, Fisher, Thompson, Beckwith, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges. NOTICE (FILED-May 31, 2018) In response to a proposal from the D.C. Bar, the court is considering whether to amend D.C. App. R. 46 relating to admission of graduates of non-accredited law schools. Memoranda provided by the D.C. Bar that explain the proposed amendment are attached. The court specifically invites interested parties to address the following questions, in addition to whatever other else parties wish to address: (1) To what extent, if any, should considerations of reciprocity play a role in the admission of foreign-educated lawyers to the D.C. Bar? Cf D.C. App. R. 46 (f)(2)(D) (addressing reciprocity in context of Special Legal Consultants); (2) Should the rules permitting admission to the bar of graduates of domestic law schools not accredited by the American Bar Association be different from the rules applicable to graduates of foreign non-accredited law schools?; (3) Should the court require that the some or all of the requisite course of study be taken within the United States?; ( 4) Should the court permit any of the additional course of study to be fulfilled by distance learning, and if so to what extent?; ( 5) If specific courses are to be required, what should they be?; (6) If the court were to retain the rule requiring that all courses focus on subjects tested on the Uniform Bar Exam, should it amend the rule to add a distribution requirement for those courses?; (7) Should a separate English-language proficiency requirement be imposed?; (8) To what extent would the proposal address the specific needs of law firms, their clients, and other individuals seeking legal services in the District of Columbia?; and (9) What is the expected practical impact of the proposal on the number of new admittees to the D.C.
    [Show full text]