|
Cases
Solin v. O'Melveny & Myers, LLP (May
24, 2001) 2001 WL 550861, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5189
A legal malpractice case was brought by an attorney against the law
firm he retained for advice regarding the representation of his
clients and to which confidential information concerning the criminal
activities of the clients was imparted. The Second District Court of
Appeal held the action was such that it was incapable of full
resolution without breaching the attorney-client privilege and was
thus properly dismissed.
Fox Searchlight Pictures v. Paladino (May
22, 2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 294
An in-house counsel suing her former employer for wrongful termination
may disclose to her attorney all facts relevant to the termination
even if this includes divulging employer confidences and privileged
communications.
Depublished Cases
Rallis v. Cassidy (previously published at
84 Cal.App.4th 285)
The Second District Court of Appeal held that an
attorney-client relationship between a corporation's attorney and
the corporate directors, officer or shareholders as individuals may be
created on the basis of an implied-in-fact contract. The California
Supreme Court denied review and ordered the case not to be officially
published (Jan. 7, 2001).
Magill v. Superior Court (previously
published at 86 Cal.App.4th 61)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that video and photos taken by
an attorney's investigator do not have communicative intent and were
therefore not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The
California Supreme Court denied review and ordered the case not to be
officially published (April 25, 2001).
Ethics Opinions
L.A. County Bar No. 506
An attorney has a duty to preserve confidential information
obtained during initial consultations with a prospective client, where
the consultations do not result in the retention of the attorney. An
attorney has no duty to disclose the information to an existing
client, even though it may be significant to the existing client,
where the information is unrelated to the attorney's representation.
San Diego County Bar No. 2001-1
An attorney may not condition delivery of copies of significant
documents in the client's files to the client on the client's
prior payment of the copying costs, notwithstanding a contrary fee
agreement provision.
State Bar Formal Opinion No. 2001-155
This new COPRAC opinion discusses the professional responsibility
issues and considerations relating to Internet web sites containing
information to the public concerning the attorney's availability for
professional employment. Such use of an Internet website is a
"communication" under California Rule of Professional Conduct
1-400 and an "advertisement" under Business and Professions Code
§§6157 and 6158.3 and is subject to the applicable prohibitions on
false, misleading and deceptive messages.
Proposed Ethics Opinions
Cal. Interim Opinion No. 93-0005
Fee Agreement Mediation Provision - This proposed opinion
discusses fee agreement provisions by which client and lawyer agree to
mediate future disputes about claims against the lawyer (malpractice
or professional misconduct) or fees and costs. In addition, the
proposed opinion further discusses the process of selecting the
mediator through a designated mediation service and the allocation of
the costs of the mediation. [For any questions or for additional
information about this proposal, please contact the State Bar Office
of Professional Competence at 415/538-2167.] |
