MODERN LEGAL ETHICS By Charles W. Wolfram Charles Frank Reavis Sr. Professor of Law Cornell Law School HORNBOOK SERIES ee STUDENT EDITION ae gehool class. pvervitws, +o hornzoots - @ 2 aoore WEST PUBLISHING CO, St. Paul, Minn., 1986. ol aates. aq to aw tT teeter eae : ste movin . ty Atserss 2 ) — (wpost- Enron ethics *Modern legal Ethics Gry] i si f Contents ; jummary 0} onten: doyle PREFACE... Westlaw INTRODUCTION i PART ONE. LAWYERS AND THE t LEGAL PROFESSION 5 Chapter 1. The World of Lawyers .. 1 2. Regulation of Lawyers and the Legal Profession .. 20 3. Professional Discipline of Lawyers...... = 9 i PART TWO. LAWYERS AND CLIENTS 4. The Client-Lawyer Relationship 5. Lawyer Competence 6. Lawyers as Client Confidants 242 7. Conflict of Interest .. - 312 8. Special Conflicts of Interest Topics .. 410 9. Client-Lawyer Contracts 7 495 PART THREE. THE ROLE OF LAWYERS 10. The Adversary System... 11. Laywers as Advocates 593, 12. Lawyer Forensics.. 619 : 13. Lawyers as Counselors... -_ 687 PART FOUR. DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES : 14, The Need for a Lawyer 7 csceeeeee TTL 15. The Right to Practice La 824. 16. Forms and Funding of Law Practice .. 875 Appendix A. WESTLAW References .... TABLE OF CASES... TABLE OF MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY — ‘TaBLE oF MopeL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ConDUCT TABLE OF CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS... ‘TaBLE OF ABA STANDARDS....... TABLE OF ABA Eratcs CoMMITTEE OPINIONS Inpex Wotan anencan anya xi*7 al Gees Dedaitect takle of Modern 9" Cast) Camnor o re) aw COMORES Sec. Page 4.7 Advice of Counsel - a ia 48 Client Funds and Property 175 CHAPTER FIVE. LAWYER COMPETENCE 5.1 Definition and Regulation of Competence .. 185 52 193 5.3 198 5.4 Postprofessional Education, Training, and Certification _. 200 203 5.5 Specialization ..... 5.6 Legal Malpractice and Other Performance-Based Liabi ties of Lawyers... 5.6.1 The Scope of Lawyer Liability to Clients ... 5.6.2 Standards of Lawyer Liability for Malpractice 5.6.3 Proximate Causation and Damages in Legal Mal- practice.. - 218 5.6.4 — Lawyer Liability to Nonclients for Negligence... 223 56.5 Intentional Wrongs of Lawyers... a 227 5.6.6 Vicarious Liability 5.6.7 Limiting Liability . : 56.8 Legal Malpractice Insurance 238 . 240 i CHAPTER SIX. LAWYERS AS CLIENT CONFIDANTS —ipy,le- of 61 The Confidentiality Principle 6.1.1 Legal and Professional Protection of Confidentiali- ty. - : : 612 History of the Attorney-Client Privilege ... 61.3 Policy Behind the Privilege : 614 Critiques of the Privilege...... 62 Confidentiality and the Constitution. - 248 6.2.1 Scope of the Claims for Constitutional Protection 248 6.2.2 Fourth Amendment... 6.2.3 Fifth Amendment.. 624 — Sixth Amendment 63 The Attorney-Client Privilege 63.1 General i 63.2 Client Advice-Seeker... 63.3 Partisan Lawyer 6.3.4 Invoking the Privilege 6.3.5 Client-Communicated Information...... 636 — Client as the Communicative Source 63.7 Confidential Setting... 63.8 — Lawyer or Lawyer's Agent as Recipient 64 — Confidentiality Waivers, Exceptions, and Extensions - 64.1 General... 64.2 Client Consen c 64.3 Defective Assertion of the Privilege 6.4.4 Post-Communication Disclosure to Third Persons 269 64.5 Inadvertent Disclosure ....... ceececeeeeceneeeee 212 646 Partial Disclosure....... cee 213“asle Pf case ig a great tool when you waut to focus Southern Tier Legal Services, In re, 100 Mise.24 1068, 420 N.YS24 591 (1979)—§ 14.3.3 n, 80. Southern Valley Grain Dealers Ass'n v. Board of County Commrs., 257 N.W.2d 425 (N.DAQT7}—§ 7.1.7 n. 13. Sowa, State ex rel. v. Sommerville, W.Va, —-, 280 SE. 24 85 (1981)—§ 8.95 n. 59. Sowers, State ex rel. v. Olwell, 64 Wn.2d 828, 394 P.24 681, (1964)—§. 12.8.5 n. 74, 76, Spain, Ex parte, 689 SW.2d 192 (Tex,Crim.App.1979)— 9.894 n. 43, Spann, In re, 183 NJSuper. 62, 443 A.2d 299 (1982)— $169 n. 27. Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F.2d 161 (2d Cir. 1966)—-§ 96.1 n. 12; § 102.3 n. 6h § 15.41 n. 3, 9. Spar, In re, 100 AD2d 71, 473 N.YS2d 192 (1984)— $15.14 n. 64, Spates v. Manson, 644 F.2d 80 (24 Cir.1981)—§ 144.2 Spaulding v. Zimmerman, 263 Minn, 346, (1962) 12.6.4 n. 23, Gal App.24 25, 319 P.2a 709 (1957)—§ 13.104 n, 79. Spears, United States v., 568 F.2d 799 (10th Cir.1978)— § 1354 n. 54, Special February 1975 Grand Jury, In re, 406 F.Supp. 194 (NDINA975)—§ 7.13 m. 21; § 714 n. 4B, § 7.1.7 n, 23. Special Grand Jury, In re, 676 F.2d 1005 (4th Cir.1982)— § 1464 n. 65, ‘Special Investigation No. 231, In re, 205 Md. 966, 455 A.24 442 (1989)—§ 7.1.7 n, 23, Special Sept. 1978 Grand Jury (ID, In re, 640 F.2d 49 (7th Cir.1980)—-§ 6.4.10 n. 44, 59, 62, 66, 68; § 6.6.2 n. 48; § 1133 n. 81; § 14.64 n, 70, Speck, People v., 41 IlL2d 177, 242 N.E.24 208 (1968)— § 6.36 n. 4 Speedee Oil Change No. 2, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins Co, 444 So.2d 1904 (La.App.1984)—§ 8.6.4 n. 54. Spencer v. Burglass, 887 So.2d 596 (La.App.1976)—§ 5.6 n. 25, 35, Spencer v. Justices of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 579 F.Supp. 880 (E.D.Pa.1984)—§ 14.2.4 n. 62, 65, 74. Sperry v. Florida, 373 US. 979, 83 S.Ct. 1332, 10 LEd.2d 428§ 242 n. 61; § 345 n. 60; § 6.2.3 n. 69; § 15.25 25. Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida St. Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 83. SCL. 1822, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963}—§ 2.2.5 n, 84; § 5.5 n. 26; § 154.1 n 4, Spevack v. Klein, 385 US. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625, 17 LBA2d 574 (196T)—§ 3.4.3; § 8.4.8 n. 6, 92. Spiegel, People v., 199 Colo. 161, 567 P.2d 958 (1977)}— § 7.5.1 n, 28, Spilker v. Hankin, 188 F.2d 95 (D.C.Cir.1951}—§ 1.6; § 9.1m, 8 25; § 921 n. 52, 55; § 9.61 n. 9. Spilky v. Hirsch, 102 Mise.24 536, 425 N.Y.S.2d 934 (Sup €1.1980)—§ 7.5.2 n. 99, Spindell v. State Bar, 19 Cal 3d 259, 188 Cal Rptr. 480, 590 Pld 168 (1975}~§ 5. n. 47; § 1631 n. 99. Snindle v Chubb/Paifie Indemn, Grog, 89 Cal App. | ‘706, 162 Cal.Rptr. 776 (1979—§ 7.24 n. 8h Spires v. American Bus Lines, 188 Cal.App.3d 211, 204 Cal.Rptr. 531 (1984—§ 92.1 n, 32, Spivack, Shulman & Goldman v. Foremost Liquor Store, Inc, 124 Ill App84 676, 80 Ill Dee. 385, 465 N'E24 500 (19895 5.62 n. 79, Spivak v. Sachs, 16 N.Y.2d 163, 263 N.Y.S.2d 963, 211 N.E2d 329 (1965}—§ 86.1 n. 12; § 16.4.1 n. 1, 99, Splane, In re, 123 Pa, 527, 16 A. 481 (1880)—§ 2.2.8 n. 86, Sprader v. Mueller, 265 Minn, 111, 121 N.W2d 176 (1963)§ 64.4 n, 1. Sprague v. Morgan, 185 CalApp.2d 519, 8 Cal.Rptr. 347 (1960) 6.6.2 n. 85. ‘Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct, 777, 83 LEA. 1184 (1939)—§ 16.6.2; § 16.6.2 n. 47, 49. Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn, 563, 362 A2d ‘871 (1975)-§ 6.63 n. 23; § 567 n. 57. Spruell v. Jarvis, 654 F 2d 1090 (5th Cir.1981)—§ 12.1.3 n, 50, Sprung v. Jaffe, 3 N.Y.2d 599, 169 N.YS2d 456, 147 N.E2d 6 (1957}—§ 6.13 n, 56. ‘Spurlark, United States ex rel. v. Wolff, 683 F.2d 216 (7th Cir.1982)—§ 143.7 n. 31, : Srenaski, In re, 105 Wis.2d 697, 314 N.W.24 359, 361 (19824 3.3.1 n. 62, Sriberg v. Raymond, 544 F.2d 15 (Ist Cir. 1976-—§ 5.6.5 n, 13, Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Hawaii 62, 374 P.2d 665 (1962)— § 95.1 n. 26, Stafford v. Garrett, 46 Or.App. 781, 613 P.2d 99 (1980)— § 5.62 n, 82. Stakes, State v., 227 Kan, 711, 608 P.2d 997 (1980)— $93.2 n. 83, Stalland v. South Dakota Bd. of Law Examiners, 590 F.Supp. 155 (D.SD.1982)—§ 16.23 n, 94. Staller, In re, 94 A.D2d 119, 463 N.Y.$24 459 (1983)— § 384 n. 99, Standard Oil Co., United States v., 196 FSupp. 245 (SD. NY.1955)—§ 7.1.7 n. 10; § 741 nm. 84; § 743 1, § 810.2 n. 66, 75; § 810.3 n. 31. Stanford Daily, Zurcher v., 436 U.S. 547, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 LEd.2d 525 (1978)~§ 14.64 n, 25. Stanley v. Board of Prof. Resp., 640 S.W.24 210 (Tenn, 1982)-$ 43 n. 79, Stanton v. Saks, 311 N.W.24 584 (S.D.1981)—§ 9.6.1 n. & Stanziale v. First Nat'l Bank, 74 F-RD. 567 (SD.NY. 197T}-§ 1662 n. 83. Stapp v. State, 249 Ga, 289, 200 S.B2d 439 (1982)— § 1433 n. al. Star v. Simonelli, 76 A.D.24 861, 428 N.Y.S2d 617 (1980)—§ 5.6.5 n. 93. ev. Tate, 21 Cal.App.3d 482, 98 Cal. Rptr. 264 (1971)— $185.7 n. 13, Stark County Bar Ass'n v. Ergazos, 2 Ohio St.3d 59, 442 N6.2d 1286 (1982)§ 35.2 n, 41. Stark County Bar Ass'n v. Osborne, 1 Ohio St.dd 140, 438 N.B.2d 114 (1982)-§ 811.2 n. 4 ark St. Properties, Ine. v. Teufel, 277 Or. 649, 562 P-2¢ AS77—§ 64.4 n. 96. Starusko, United States v, 729 F.2d 256d Cie 1980 § 18105 1, 11} or client.) Lawyers should not always as- sume that a client would refuse to make closures that seem desirable on moral or oth- er grounds simply because the law does not compel disclosure. To assume that clients always wish only to assert all possible legal rights regardless of moral or other nonlegal considerations may often be factually inaccu: rate and, in any event, is disrespectful of clients with more altruistic instincts If, after a full and complete discussion of the problem, a client agrees to disclosure, this effectively waives the confidentiality principle (see § 6.7.7). 4542( 18) 45432(14) WESTLAW REFERENCES § 12.64 Disclosure under the Lawyer feel Coden 1908 Canons i nn provision of the 1908 Canons dealing with client confidential information, Canon 87, specifically provided that “the announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which (the lawyer] is bound to keep. He may make such disclosures as may be necessary to prevent the act or protect those against whom it is threatened.” Canon 41 went on to provide a mandatory disclosure rule. If a lawyer dis- covered that "some fraud or deception has been practiced, which has unjustly imposed 21 State v, Harper, 214 Neb. 911, 336 N.W.24 597 (1989), certdenied 465 U.S’ 1013, 104 S.Ct. 1016, 79 LEd.2d 246 (1984Xfailure to prevent accused from revealing to court type of carcinogenic agent used to poison vietims, includ: ing three vietims who could not adequately he treated nless information about agent was quickly made known, not ineffective assistance of counsel), Fried, The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Founda- tions of the Lawyer Client Relation, 85 Yale LJ. 1060, 1088 (19761, Lehman, The Pursuit of w Client's Interest, 77 Mich L.Rev. 1078, 1087 (1979), Alschuler, The Search for Truth Continued, the Privilege Retained: A Resporise to Judge Frankel, 54 U.Colo.LRev, 61 % Compare Spaulding v. Zimmerman, 263 Minn. 246, 116 N.W.24 704, 710 U962Xwhen defense lawyer knew of defense physician's report of unknown life-threaten’ ni and easily correctable condition of opposiny patty, "m0 LAWYER FORENSICS pee Ch. 12 upon the court or a party, he should endeavor to rectify it; at first by advising his client, and if his client refuses to forego the advan. tage thus unjustly gained, he should promptly inform the injured person or his counsel, 50 that they make take appropriate steps.” Ap- parently, however, only client acts character- izable as fraud, deception, or crime were to be disclosed. Even in the case of a client’s clear intention to take a life, from all that is said, a lawyer is not required to take remedial steps. And despite the apparent bias of the Canons in favor of harm prevention, a con- fused series of ethics committee opinions oft- en ignored or distinguished away the disclo- sure canons and enjoined silence upon lawyers in a variety of client wrongdoing situ- ations. 1969 Code: The 1969 Code traces the 1908 Canons. It requires both confidentiality and disclosure and ignores the collision course on which these inconsistent professional obligations have been put. The principle of confidentiali- ty is broadly sketched in DR 4-101(A) (see § 6.7.3), but DR 4-101(C) provides that “a lawyer may reveal (3) the intention of his client to commit a crime and the informa- tion necessary to prevent the crime.” Thus it appears that a lawyer who learns in the course of a confidential client interview that the client intends to commit murder or some to prevent the The Basic Provisions canon of ethics or legal obligation may have required [defence lawyers) to inform” that party; nonetheless, trial court had discretion to reopen judgment after settle. ment by uninformed party), 2% For reviews of the bewildering series of opinions of collected in A-Kaufman, Problems in Professional Re- the ABA ethics committee dealing with disclosure of client wrongdoing, see, eg. the samplings of opinions wee sponsibility 111-118 (1976), ‘Wolfram, Client Perjury, 50 SoCal L Rev. 809, 837 n.105 (1977), Callan & David, Professional Responsibility and the Duty of Canfidentiali ty Disclosure of Client Misconduct in an Adversary System, 29 Rutgers Rev. 332.358 n 114, 162-65 (197% Part of the confusion has recerstly been relieved by ABA Formal Op. 84-349 (1984), that “withdraws” ABA Formal Ops. 155 11926) and. 156 11936