130 likes | 209 Views
ETHICAL PERILS OF SOLO AND SMALL FIRM PRACTICE. G. Michael Witte Executive Secretary Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. BY THE NUMBERS (fiscal 2010). 1,542 - grievances filed (fiscal 2010) 906/636 - dismissals to request for response 40/63 - VC’s filed and # of counts
E N D
ETHICAL PERILS OF SOLO AND SMALL FIRM PRACTICE G. Michael Witte Executive Secretary Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
BY THE NUMBERS (fiscal 2010) • 1,542 - grievances filed (fiscal 2010) • 906/636 - dismissals to request for response • 40/63 - VC’s filed and # of counts ____________________________________ • 17,187 – active, in good standing • 2,755 – inactive, in good standing • 1,245 – pro hac vice (temporary admission) • 8.47 grievances for every 100 active lawyer
LAW LICENSE STATUS • Administrative Status • Active - Admis.& Disc. Rule 2(b) • Inactive – Admis. & Disc. Rule 2(c) • Retired – Admis. & Disc Rule 2(d) • Withdraw – Admis. & Disc. Rule 2(l) • Deceased • Discipline Status • Suspension – Admis. & Disc. Rule 23(3)(a) • With or W/O auto reinstatement - 180 day rule • Disbarment – Admis. & Disc. Rule 23(3)(a) • Resignation – Admis. & Disc. Rule 23(17)
LAW LICENSE STATUS • In re Barce, 934 NE2d 732 (Ind. 2010) • In re Rocchio, 943 NE2d 797 (Ind. 2011)
LAWYER ADVERTISING • Prof. Cond. R. 7.3 – Direct Contact With Prospective Clients and Targeted Solicitations • Prof. Cond. R. 7.5 – Firm Names and Letterheads • Admis. Disc. R. 27 – Professional Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, and Limited Partnerships
TRUST ACCOUNTS • Admis. Disc. R. 23(29) • Trust Account Manual • Trust Account School
SUPERVISING EMPLOYEES • Prof. Cond. R. 5.3 – Responsibilities Regarding Non-lawyer Assistants • Use of Non-lawyer Assistants Guidelines 9.1 – 9.10 • Cases • In re Litz, 950 N.E.2d 291 (2010) • In re Anonymous, 929 N.E.2d 778 (2010) • In re Schuyler, 894 N.E.2d 543 (2008) • In re Anonymous, 876 N.E.2d 333 (2007)
ATTORNEY FEES • In re Powell, 953 N.E.2d 1060 (2011) • In re Hammerle, 952 N.E.2d 751 (2011) • In re Kray, 938 N.E.2d 218 (2010) • In re Lauter, 933 N.E.2d 1258 (2010) • In re O’Farrell, 942 N.E.2d 799 (2011) • In re Rawls, 936 N.E.2d 812 (2010) • In re Zielinski, 943 N.E.2d 809 (2011)
REPORTING LAWYER MISCONDUCT – Rule of Prof. Cond. 8.3(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
REPORTING LAWYER MISCONDUCT – Admis. and Disc. Rule 23(11.1 )(a)(2) An attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Indiana who is found guilty of a crime in any state or of a crime under the laws of the United States shall, within ten (10) days after such finding of guilt, transmit a certified copy of the finding of guilt to the Executive Secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
REPORTING LAWYER MISCONDUCT – Admis. and Disc. Rule 23(11.1 )(a)(1) “The judge of any court in this state in which an attorney is found guilty of a crime shall, within ten (10) days after the finding of guilt, transmit a certified copy of proof of the finding of guilt to the Executive Secretary of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.” Confusion with felony conviction procedure.
REPORTING LAWYER MISCONDUCT - Code of Judicial Conduct • Canon 2, Rule 2.15(B) – A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. • Canon 2, Rule 2.15(C) – A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.