Recently in Ethics Category

Lawyers are good with words, so it's easy for us to find ways of blaming other people for our mistakes. A lawyer, for example, never "drinks too much," he is merely "over-served."

Northern California attorney Tim Pori, however, was not as successful with blame-shifting in front of Superior Court Judge Carrie Panetta during a recent court appearance. (For what it's worth, he actually accepted responsibility.) Judge Panetta, clearly irked that Pori could not begin a murder trial last week due to a scheduling overlap, found Pori in contempt of court, sentenced him to five days in jail, and ordered him to pay a $2,500 fine.

We usually write our own headlines. Some are straightforward. Some are funny. (At least we hope they’re funny). Every once in a while, however, a court will hand us such a gem that we decide to use a direct quote in a headline.

That’s what happened today. (Thanks, Second Appellate District!)

So how far must an attorney go to be deemed a “vexatious litigant” engaged in “grievously unethical conduct?” We’ll give you a hint: The answer involves puppet counsel.

California’s Fourth Appellate District Court said bah-humbug to a plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on Wednesday, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations had not sufficiently supported the judgment he sought.

The Fourth Appellate District overturned a trial court’s default judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Respondent Gil Kim, finding that - despite the defendants’ failure to respond - Kim had not sufficiently pleaded factual allegations to support judgment in his favor.

After disposing of its business with Kim, the court slapped his attorney, Timothy Donahue, with $10,000 in attorney sanctions.

Two California attorneys were slapped with sanctions last month for filing a frivolous appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The attorneys, William Veale of Walnut Creek and Dennis Cunningham of San Francisco, along with Mustapha Ndanusa of New York, were representing April Gallop, the plaintiff in the 9/11 “Truther” Lawsuit.

Cocktail parties have been around for a long time, so attorneys have heard for years that legal advice in cocktail party conversation could result in an attorney-client relationship, whether or not the attorney intended to enter such a relationship.

Offering legal advice over the Internet can create similar relationships, without the drinks.

How can a lawyer keep current on latest trends and rulings at the intersection of attorney ethics and technology? Try checking the State Bar of California's Ethics and Technology Resources page.

You’ve seen her ads on television. She calls herself the “Tax Lady.”

Well, you won’t be seeing Roni Deutch’s commercials in California anymore. Roni Deutch resigned from the California State Bar last month, reports the California Bar Journal.

While this is a Superior Court case and not an appellate case or a California Supreme Court case, it’s nevertheless relevant to this blog as it affects California practitioners in all courts.

The courtroom is a place of judgment, so every part of a litigator's knowledge is important. While the merits of an argument and a strong understanding of the procedural rules are crucial in winning a case, never underestimate the value of your image as an attorney. Attorneys, particularly those appearing in court, should know the how to manipulate fashion to their advantage.

If you run a Google search on "what to wear to court," you'll undoubtedly come across many articles talking about courtroom attire for litigants; discussing the impact that attire can have on how the judge and jury perceive the litigants, both parties and witnesses. In fact, there have even been studies outlining the idea that jurors grant favorable sentences to more attractive people. A Cornell University study examined this idea, pointing out that many jurors process information intuitively and as such, will take into account the appearance of the defendants.

But what about the attorneys? As much as many want to deny it, the truth is that attire and image matter -- especially in court.

Beware, California lawyers! Malpractice lawsuits just became a bit easier.

In April, the California appellate court case of Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher found against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in a result that should raise red flags for all California attorneys, particularly those who draft documents for client consumption. According to Thomson Reuters News & Insight, the 2nd District California Court of Appeal held that the law firm's clients had a malpractice claim against the firm, based on a faulty family limited partnership-- over a decade after the documents had been drafted.

The key issue at appeal was the statute of limitations on such a claim. The statute of limitations on the malpractice suit, states the court in its opinion, began to run after injury was sustained as opposed to when the allegedly faulty documents were drafted. The injury occurred in 2004, nearly sixteen years after the documents had been drafted.