Legal Ethics

Expert Analysis

• Cloud Computing Clearly The Future For Small Firms

  

  While in-house technology investments on the scale and complexity needed to compete with large firms remain cost prohibitive for small and midsize law firms, cloud-based services offer significant cost savings and productivity gains with little to no capital investment, says Holly Urban of Effortless Legal LLC.

• Leveraging Today's Lateral Associate Market

  

  With the Milbank/Cravath pay scale once again equalizing compensation at many Am Law 100 firms, there is even more pressure for firms to differentiate themselves to top lateral associate candidates. This presents strategic considerations for both law firms and lateral candidates throughout the recruitment process, says Darin Morgan of Major Lindsey & Africa.

• Q&A

  Back To School: Stanford's Jeff Fisher Talks Supreme Court

  

  In this series featuring law school luminaries, Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher discusses his motivation for teaching, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court and what the court might look like if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.

• Calif.'s New Rules For Lawyers Move Closer To ABA Model

  

  The first comprehensive overhaul of California's Rules of Professional Conduct in nearly 30 years becomes operational on Nov. 1. Some of the new rules mirror the model language used by the American Bar Association, but many continue to reflect California’s unique approach to certain ethical questions, says Mark Loeterman of Signature Resolution LLC.

• Know The Limits To Atty Public Statements During A Trial

  

  The balancing act between protecting attorneys’ speech rights and ensuring unbiased adjudications was highlighted recently in two cases — when Michael Cohen applied for a restraining order against Stephanie Clifford's attorney, and when Johnson & Johnson questioned whether a Missouri talc verdict was tainted by public statements from the plaintiffs' counsel, says Matthew Giardina of Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP.

• In Calif., Questions Remain On Law Firm Conflict Waivers

  

  In Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing Co., the California Supreme Court ruled last month that a law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict with another current client did not categorically disentitle the firm from recovering fees. But the court didn’t provide hoped-for guidance on how to write an enforceable advance conflict waiver, says Richard Rosensweig of Goulston & Storrs PC.

• Q&A

  A Chat With Faegre Client Development Chief Melanie Green

  

  In this monthly series, Amanda Brady of Major Lindsey & Africa interviews management from top law firms about the increasingly competitive business environment. Here we feature Melanie Green, chief client development officer at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

• Structuring Investigations In Light Of UK Privilege Case

  

  The English Court of Appeal's much-anticipated decision in Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation means that companies will continue to face difficulties in obtaining the information they need to investigate suspected wrongdoing, without losing the benefit of legal advice privilege under English law, say Mark Beeley and Rebecca Dipple of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

• Opinion

  High Court Must Correct La. Judge's Failure To Recuse

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court should agree to hear Lacaze v. Louisiana, a case involving an egregious conflict of interest for a judge who presided over a capital case. It is an opportunity to remind judges to disclose their known connections to cases before them, and recuse themselves when necessary, says George Eskin, a retired California Superior Court judge.

• Can Kavanaugh Be Impeached For Statements To Congress?

  

  Sitting U.S. senators and a former congressional staffer have accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct, including being untruthful in his nomination and confirmation processes for both the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Could this subject him to impeachment? Attorney Barbara Radnofsky explores the question through past precedent.