CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘California LPL’ Category

California Lawyers Now Have A Duty of Diligence

Posted on: September 13th, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

The prior rules of professional conduct for California lawyers required them to be competent but were silent on also being “diligent.” Under the latest version of the rules, California lawyers now have an express duty of diligence. (Rule 1.3) That is, California lawyers can now be disciplined by the State Bar for neglecting or disregarding a matter.

The State Bar, after all, is a consumer protection organization, and its focus is on protecting the public from unscrupulous or incompetent lawyers. It is not a trade association that promotes lawyer interests.

Hence, California lawyers now have a duty “to get the job done”—the new duty of diligence. Lawyers should therefore stay on top of their matters and not let them languish. Doing so could expose the lawyer to a State Bar complaint.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected], or any other member of our Lawyers Professional Liability Practice Group, a list of which can be found at www.fmglaw.com.

Does a California Lawyer Have to Convey All Settlement Offers to the Client?

Posted on: July 31st, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

Not necessarily. Under Rule 1.4.1 of the ethics rules for California lawyers, in criminal matters, all terms and conditions of plea bargains or other dispositive offers, whether written or oral, have to be communicated to the client promptly. In non-criminal matters, all WRITTEN offers have to be promptly communicated. But what about a VERBAL offer in a non-criminal case? That’s a judgment call for the lawyer. If the lawyer believes the verbal offer is a “significant development,” then, yes, an oral offer should be promptly conveyed to the client. If, however, only a nuisance value oral offer is made, and the lawyer does not believe such offer is significant, then the lawyer cannot be disciplined for failing to communicate said offer. Of course, in the off chance the State Bar investigated the lawyer’s decision to not convey a verbal offer, the Bar would determine if the oral offer was significant or not.

That said, the best practice is to convey all offers, regardless of form, to the client, and to do so promptly.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected], or any other member of our Lawyers Professional Liability Practice Group, a list of which can be found at www.fmglaw.com.

Are Verbal Fee Splits Among California Law Firms Okay?

Posted on: July 18th, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

The answer to this question is now “no.” When different law firms split a legal fee–say a contingency fee–verbal “gentlemen’s agreements” are not permitted under California’s new ethics rules. The old ethics rules allowed different law offices to verbally agree to a referral fee wherein the referring lawyer would get, say, 5% of any total recovery by another, unaffiliated lawyer. New Rule 1.5.1, now requires that the unaffiliated lawyers splitting or dividing such a fee have their own agreement in writing. Further, the client has to consent in writing to that fee split. The written disclosure to the client must disclose the terms of the fee split and the identity of the lawyers who are splitting the fee. As long as the total fee charged by all lawyers is not increased due to the agreed split, fee sharing among different law offices is permissible under California’s ethical rules.

The agreement among unaffiliated law offices need not be signed, however. An informal e-mail setting forth the terms of the fee split could suffice.

The lesson here is casual, oral arrangements among California law firms to split legal fees are no longer permitted under the ethical rules.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected], or any other member of our Lawyers Professional Liability Practice Group, a list of which can be found at www.fmglaw.com.

Can a California Supervising Lawyer Be Disciplined for an Associate’s Misconduct?

Posted on: June 28th, 2019

By: Greg Fayard

The answer to this question is yes, in certain circumstances. This is a change under the current rules of professional conduct for lawyers compared to the prior rules, which expired last October 31, 2018.

Rule 5.1 says supervising lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures to ensure all lawyers comply with the ethical rules. Such measures include policies and procedures on conflicts of interest, a calendaring system, guidelines on workloads and proper supervision of inexperienced lawyers. However, a supervising lawyer can be responsible for a subordinate lawyer’s violation of an ethical rule if the supervising lawyer ordered the violation, or knew the relevant facts and conduct and ratified it, or knew of the violative conduct at a time when its consequences could have been avoided but failed to mitigate it or take remedial action. A “supervising” lawyer is a case-by-case question of fact.

Where the potential ethical violation, however, was a reasonable resolution to a problem, or an arguable question of professional responsibility, then the supervising lawyer would not be subject to discipline for the subordinate’s ethical lapse.

The point is: supervising lawyers now have some responsibility for the ethical breaches of junior lawyers, or those they supervise. An experienced lawyer for example, who is supervising another experienced lawyer but who is practicing in a new area, could be disciplined for that equally seasoned lawyer’s ethical lapse. Rule 5.1 does not only apply to the experienced lawyer supervising a less experienced lawyer.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected], or any other member of our Lawyers Professional Liability Practice Group, a list of which can be found at www.fmglaw.com.

Fourth Circuit Affirms $61 Million TCPA Judgment

Posted on: June 18th, 2019

By: Matt Foree

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a judgment based on a jury verdict of over $61 million for illegal telemarketing calls made under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). As a matter of background, plaintiff Thomas Krakauer brought the TCPA lawsuit against Dish Network, L.L.C. (“Dish”) after he received telemarketing calls from Dish’s third-party contractor, Satellite Systems Network (“SSN”), which made calls on its behalf, despite the fact that Krakauer had listed his telephone number on the national Do Not Call registry. The TCPA provides for a private right of action to those who have received more than one telephone solicitation within any 12-month period to a number listed on the Do Not Call registry without consent or an established business relationship. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled to $1500 per violation for willful or knowing violations.

In 2015, Krakauer filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The District Court certified the class and the case went to a jury trial. The jury awarded $400 per call as damages and found that the calls were willful, thereby trebling the damages, which resulted in an over $61 million jury verdict.

Dish appealed the judgment on several bases. When it challenged the standing of some of the class members, the Fourth Circuit made quick work of that argument, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins decision to find that standing existed. In so holding, the court underscored the legal traditions recognizing intrusions upon personal privacy. Dish also challenged class certification. Noting that Dish’s core argument seemed to be that the class included a large number of uninjured persons, the Fourth Circuit upheld class certification, finding that the class certified by the District Court easily met the demands of Rule 23.

Finally, Dish argued that it was not liable for SSN’s conduct and that the violations were not knowing or willful to permit treble damages. The court found that considerable evidence supported an agency relationship between Dish and SSN. Among other things, the court referred to the provisions of the parties’ contract giving Dish broad authority over SSN’s business and the fact that Dish authorized SSN to use its name and logo during its operations. Finally, the court found that the willful or knowing standard was met, thereby upholding the judgment.

Throughout the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, the court made several charitable statements about the TCPA, suggesting that the statute is straightforward and easy to apply. It also described the appropriateness of TCPA claims for class certification. In sum, this case provides a case study of many of the landmines confronted by TCPA defendants, including potentially devastating statutory damages, class certification, and vicarious liability issues. This case is just the latest reminder that those operating in this space would do well to ensure strict compliance with the TCPA to avoid a similar fate.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Matt Foree at [email protected].