ModelRuleofProfessionalConduct-NotesforLegalprofession

MR1.2tScopeofRepresentationUndertheModelRule(“MR”)1.2(a)alawyerisrequiredtoabidebyhisclient’sdecisionsregardingobjectivesandalawyermaytakeactionastothemeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued.Thisallowstheclienttosettheoutcomegoalsandforthelawyertocomeupwiththelegalstrategyandcourseofactiontotaketoachievethosegoalsandobjectives.MitchMcDeere(TomCruise,”Mitch”)representedtheMoroltofamilyandgroupofbusinesses.Mitchwasrequiredbylawtodoeverylawfulthinginthebestinterestofhisclientsandrefuseto“goundercover”anddisclosetotheFBI.Theclient’sobjectivesweretominimizeUStaxliabilitiesbyinvestingmoneyoffshoreintheCaymanIslandsandotherloworzerotaxjurisdictions.TheFBIwantedtogettheirhandsonconfidentialinformationincludingthecorporateformationdocumentsandbankaccountinformationwhichwereprotectedbyattorney-clientprivilege.Here.Mitchfurtheredtheclient’sobjectivesbynotdisclosingconfidentialinformationtotheFBI,butbyaskingtheclienttovoluntarilyreleasetheirbills.MR1.16tDecliningOrTerminatingRepresentationUnderMR1.16(2),alawyershallwithdrawfromtherepresentationofaclientifthelawyer’smentalconditionmateriallyimpairsthelawyer’sabilitytorepresenttheclient.Here,duringMitch’srepresentationofMr.Morolto,Mitchexperiencedthefollowingincidents:(1)hiswifediscoveredhehadanaffair;(2)hejumpedoutofthewindowofhislawfirm;(3)hewasunderpressurefromtheFBItocooperate;and(4)two“mob”memberswerechasinghimandattemptedtomurderhim.Mitch’smentalconditionwas“materially”compromisedbecauseheindicatedhewasparanoidofhissafety,andhisphysicalappearanceindicatedhisabilitytorepresenthisclientwasimpaired.However,notwithstandinghiscondition,MitchcontinuedtoconsultMr.Moroltoonhisbestcourseofactiontoaddresstheoverbillingissue.Mitchshouldhavewithdrewhisrepresentation.Therefore,MitchviolatedMR1.16(2)becausehefailedtowithdrawrepresentationofMr.Moroltoeventhoughhismentalconditionwasmateriallyimpaired.MR1.3tDiligenceUnderMR1.3,alawyershallactwithreasonablediligenceandpromptnessinrepresentingaclient.Commentstatesalawyershouldpursueamatteronbehalfofaclientdespiteopposition,obstructionorpersonalinconveniencetothelawyer,andtakewhateverlawfulandethicalmeasuresarerequiredtovindicateaclient’scauseorendeavor.Alawyermustalsoactwithcommitmentanddedicationtotheinterestsoftheclientandwithzealinadvocacyupontheclient’sbehalf.Here,whenSonnyCapps(“Sonny”)wantedtodeviseaplantoreducetaxesonhisaccountsatCaymanislandswithanoutsideattorney,AveryTolar(GeneHackman,“Avery”)triedtostophimbyusingaveiledthreat.Hementionsthefactthatthe“FriendsinChicago”(Mafia)woulddisliketheirbusinessrelationshipsbeingexposedtoattorney’sotherthanthefirm.TherewasnoterminationintheattorneyclientrelationshipbetweenAveryandSonny,andAveryhasrepresentedhimforasubstantialamountoftime,soheisstillSonny’sattorney.Therefore,Averyhasthedutytoadvisehisclientwithreasonablediligence,andadvocateupontheSonny’sbehalf.Hisimpliedthreatsareclearlynotanactwithintheinterestsofhisclient.MR1.5tFeesUnderMR1.5(a),alawyershallnotmakeanagreementfor,charge,orcollectanunreasonablefee.Here,theFirmissuedoverbillinginordertosupporttaxissueofMoroccoHolding,andevenMitchrecognizeditsissuebydiscussingwithsecretary.Indeterminingthereasonableness,underMR1.5(a)(1),therequiredtimeandlaboralongwithnoveltyanddifficultyofthequestionswouldbeconsideredfortherequisiteskilloflegalservice.Inthisfilm,thefirmchargedoverbillingwithoutproperguidanceanddetailedtimeslips.Inaddition,Mitchusedinvoiceswithoutauthorization.InCommentofMR1.5,anagreementmaynotbemadewhosetermsmightinducethelawyerimproperlytocurtailservicefortheclientinawaycontrarytotheclient’sinterest.Thus,theFirmandMitchshouldwritetheirtimeslipsshortlyafterdoingtheworkaswellasdetailedtimeslipsforreasonablefee.Inaddition,thefirmandMitchneedtocustomizechargetoavoidchargeorcollectanunreasonablefeeorexpenses.MR1.6tConfidentialityofInformationAccordingtotheMR1.6,alawyershallnotrevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofclientunlesstheclientgivesinformedconsent.EventhoughitistheFBIagentthataskedMitchtodisclosethefile,itdoesnotsatisfyMR1.6(b),whichprovidessomeexceptionsthatalawyermayrevealtheinformationifhebelievesitnecessary.Here,theagentrequiredMitchtoprovidethefiletoprovethattheFirmassistedtheMafiatolaunderthemoney.However,MR1.6(b)onlyentitlesalawyertodiscloseinformation,whichcouldpreventcrime,substantialinjuryandmitigateloss.Someonemayarguethatthecourtandthegovernmententitycouldorderalawyertodisclosetheinformation.Nevertheless,undertheCommentof1.6,withouttheinformedconsentoftheclient,theinformationsoughtisprotectedagainstdisclosurebytheattorney-clientprivilegeorotherapplicablelaw.Thus,MitchhastoinformtheMafia(“client”)andobtaintheirconsent,eventhoughheexposedtheoverbillingorthemoneylaundering.MR1.8tConflictofInterest:CurrentClients:SpecificRulesMR1.8(b)statesthatalawyershallnotuseinformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclienttothedisadvantageoftheclientunlesstheclientgivesinformedconsent,exceptaspermittedorrequiredbytheseRules.Thatsaid,theruleprohibitsdisadvantageoususeofclientinformationunlesstheclientgivesinformedconsent.ThefirmhasactedasthesolelegalrepresentativeoftheMafiafamily.Mitchrequestedthattheclientsrevealtheclient-firmrelationshipsothathecoulddisclosehisfirm’soverbillingissue.IfMitchusedtheinformationrelatingtotherepresentationtothedisadvantageoftheclientwithoutinformedconsent,itwouldviolatethelawyersdutyofloyalty.MR1.18tDutiestoProspectiveClientTherelationshipofprospectiveclientisformedbydiscussingpossibilityandalawyershallnotuseorrevealinformationlearnedintheconsultationregardlessofconvictionofclientrelationship.MR1.18(a),(b).Here,threateningtheclientbyusingtheconfidentialinformationislikelyconsideredasviolationoftherule.Mitchwouldcounter-arguethathewasnotadmittedtopracticelawinTNwhentheeventhappened;however,theaforementioneddutiesastotheconfidentialinformationhavebeenrequiredwhenprospectiveclientconsultedandwasingoodfaith.Furthermore,inMR1.18(d),ifalawyerisdisqualifiedfromrepresentation,nolawyerinafirmwithwhichthatlawyerisassociatedmayknowinglyundertakeorcontinuerepresentation.Inaddition,alawyershallnotrepresentaclientwithinterestsadversetoaprospectiveclientwhicharesubstantiallyrelatedasstipulatedinMR1.18(c).Here,accordingtothefacts,ifMitchwasdisqualifiedfromrepresentation,theFirmshallnotrepresenttheclient.TheexceptionofMR1.18(d)wouldnotbeapplicableinthiscase.Thus,MitchandtheFirmhavedutiestoprospectiveclients,nottouseorrevealinformation,orrepresentifinterestsaremateriallyadverse.MR5.3tAssociatingwithNon-LawyersUnderMR5.3(a),apartner,shallmakereasonableeffortstoensurethatthefirmhasineffectmeasuresgivingreasonableassurancethattheperson’sconductiscompatiblewiththeprofessionalobligationsofthelawyer.Alsounder5.3(c)(2)apartnerlawyershallberesponsibleforconductofsuchapersonthatwouldbeaviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct.AlthoughMitchisallowedtoworkonprojectsunderthesupervisionofAveryaccordingtoMR5.3(a),hegavetheclient,Sonny,legaladviceduringthemeetingatCaymanIslands.ThisisanunauthorizedpracticeoflawsetoutinMR5.5,becauseMitchisnotalawyer.Therefore,underMR5.3,Averywhoisapartneratthefirm,shouldtakeresponsibilityfortheactionsofMitch,whichisaviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct.MR5.5tUnauthorizedPracticeofLawAlawschoolgraduatewhohasnotpassedthebarorwhohasnotbeenadmittedtopracticeinanyjurisdictionmaybeguiltyoftheunauthorizedpracticeoflawifhe/shegiveslegaladvice.Mitch’sadvisetoSonnyatCaymanIslandsseemstobeanunauthorizedpracticeoflawbecauseMitchhasnottakenthebarexamyet.BeforeflyingtoCaymanIslands,AveryorderedMitchtoredrafttherepatriationofoffshorefunds,therevisedtaxplanfortheclient.UnlikethemeetingwithSonny,Mitch’ssupportforAverywillnotbeconsideredunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.Avery’slegalserviceinCaymanIslandsmayfallunderunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.Alawyerwhoisnotadmittedtopracticeinotherjurisdiction-here,CaymanIslands(BritishOverseasterritory),shallnotestablishanofficeorothersystematicandcontinuouspresenceinthatjurisdictionforthepracticeoflaw(MR5.5(b)(1)).WemayassumethatAveryhasestablishedsystematicandcontinuouspresenceinCaymanIslands.HehasadvisedSonnyforalongtimeregardingtaxevasionandoftentravelledtotheIslandtomeet.HealsokepttheboxesofsecretfilesoftheChicagoclientinhisresortroom,whichshowsthefirmhaslongbeeninvolvedinthetransactioninCaymanIslands.MR5.6tRestrictionontheRighttoPracticeMR5.6prohibitsalawyerfromenteringintoanyagreementofapartnership,share,operation,oremploymentwhichwouldrestricttherightofalawyerfrompracticinglawafterterminationorasettlement.Here,Mitchdidnotenterintoanywrittenagreementthatwouldrestrictorprohibithimfromthepracticeoflawbuthewouldhavebeendisbarredforbreakingattorney-clientprivilegebyleakingconfidentialdocumentstotheFBI.Alternatively,ifMitchtriedtoleavethefirmthenthefirmwouldtakenon-legalactionandkillhim.SoitisnotanagreementtorestrictMitchpracticebuttheresultwouldhavebeenthesameifMitchweretoleavethefirm.MR5.7tLegalServiceMR5.7(a)states“AlawyershallbesubjecttotheRulesofProfessionalConductwithrespecttotheprovisionoflaw-relatedservices,asdefinedinparagraph(b),ifthelaw-relatedservicesareprovided:(1)bythelawyerincircumstancesthatarenotdistinctfromthelawyer’sprovisionoflegalservicestoclients.”CommentofMR5.7furthernotesthatexamplesoflaw-relatedservicesarefinancialplanningandtaxpreparationamongawiderangeofeconomicandotherinterestsofclients.Therefore,theFirm’slawyersaresubjecttotheRulesofProfessionalConductwhenprovidinglaw-relatedservicesliketaxplanningandotherfinancialservices.AveryviolatedMR5.7whenhethreatenedSonnythattheFirm’sother“clients”wouldbedispleasedifSonnyfiredtheFirm.MR7.1tCommunicationsconcerningaLawyer’sServiceMR7.1statesthat“[a]lawyershallnotmakeafalseormisleadingcommunicationaboutthelawyerorthelawyer’sservices.”Commentfurthernotesthat“anadvertisementthattruthfullyreportsalawyer’sachievementsonbehalfofclientsorformerclientsmaybemisleadingifpresentedsoastoleadareasonablepersontoformanunjustifiedexpectationthatthesameresultscouldbeobtainedforotherclientsinsimilarmatters.”AverystatedtoSonny,thatthefuturevalueofhistaxdollarswouldbelessthanhalfoftheirpresentvalueafterthe“Election”misleadingtheclienttobelievethatAveryknowswhowillwinthePresidentialElectionandhowtaxpolicywillchange.Also,MitchreiteratestoSonnythatheshoulddeferhistaxesaccordingtotheschedulethatAveryconstructed,Sonnypromptlyrespondsbyasking“Deferuntilwhen?”,Mitchrespondedbystating“Whydoyoucare?”.Providedthatthisadviceistrue,CommentofMR7.1statesTruthfulstatementsthataremisleadingarealsoprohibited...[a]truthfulstatementismisleadingifitomitsafactnecessarytomakethelawyer’scommunicationconsideredasawholenotmateriallymisleading.Mitch’s“Whydoyoucare”statementomitsthenecessaryfactofhowmanyyearstheclient’staxeswillbedeferredandcouldmisleadSonnytoconcludethatotherclientsdonotworryaboutthisstrategyandtosolelytrusthislegalrepresentation.MR8.1tBarAdmissionandDisciplinaryMattersUnderRule8.1,anapplicantforadmissiontothebar,oralawyer…inconnectionwithadisciplinarymatter,shallnotfailtodiscloseafactnecessarytocorrectamisapprehensionknownbythepersontohaveariseninthematter.TheapplicantforadmissiontothebarisMitch,andAvery,Mitch’ssupervisorypartner,isalawyerinconnectionwithadisciplinarymatter.IfMitchandAverydidnotdisclosetheviolationofRule5.5asdiscussedbefore,theybothknowinglymadeanomissioninconnectionwithadisciplinarymatterofMitch.MR8.3tReportingProfessionalMisconductUndertheRule8.3(a),alawyershouldreportanotherlawyer’sviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct,ifthatviolationraisesasubstantialquestionastothelawyer’shonesty,trustworthinessorfitnessasalawyer.TheFirmhadbeenoverbillingtheirclientforyears,andtheyalsohaveengagedinmoneylaunderingandtaxfraud.TheoverbillingisaviolationoftheRule1.5asdiscussedabove.Themoneylaunderingandtaxfraudconstitutemisconductbecausetheyarecriminalconductandwouldraiseasubstantialquestiontothelawyer’shonesty,trustworthinessorfitnessasalawyer.Therefore,undertheRule8.3(a),whenMitchknewthefactthattheFirmwasengagingmultiplemisconduct,heshouldreporttotheappropriateprofessionalauthority.However,undertheRule8.3(c),theRuledoesnotrequiredisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRule1.6.Asdiscussedabove,alltheinformationaboutoverbilling,moneylaunderingandtaxfraudareprotectedbyRule1.6whichisthereasonMitchhadtohavetheclient’sconsenttodisclosetheinformation.MR8.4WhatConstitutesMisconductUnderMR8.4,“[i]tisprofessionalmisconductforalawyerto:(a)violateorattempttoviolatetheRulesofProfessionalConduct,knowinglyassistorinduceanothertodoso,ordosothroughtheactsofanother;(b)commitacriminalactthatreflectsadverselyonthelawyershonesty,trustworthinessorfitnessasalawyerinotherrespects;(c)engageinconductinvolvingdishonesty,fraud,deceitormisrepresentation;”.Commentfurtherstatesthatmanykindsofillegalconductreflectadverselyonfitnesstopracticelaw,suchasoffenseinvolvingfraud”.Here,theFirmhasoverbilledclientformanyyears.Bymailingthesemisrepresentativebilltoclients,theycommittedmailfraudandviolatedMR8.4(c).Partnersaswellasmostoftheassociatesinthefirmarecomplicitintaxfraudandmoneylaundering,whicharecriminalactsreflectingadverselyonthelawyer’shonesty.Inaddition,thefirmthrowsmoneyandprovidesarathergenerousoffertoMitch,inordertomakehimgetusedtogoodlifeandinduceMitchtoengageintaxfraudandmoneylaundering.Allotherlawyersinthefirmalsoknowtheschemeandassisttodoso.SeniorpartnersandassociatesdisobeyMR8.4(a),violatingtheRulesofProfessionalConduct,knowinglyassistingandinducingMitchtoviolatetheRulesofProfessionalConduct.MR8.5tWheretheLawyerCanBeDisciplinedMR8.5(a)statesthat“Alawyeradmittedtopracticeinthisjurisdictionissubjecttothedisciplinaryauthorityofthisjurisdiction,regardlessofwherethelawyersconductoccurs.Alawyernotadmittedinthisjurisdictionisalsosubjecttothedisciplinaryauthorityofthisjurisdictionifthelawyerprovidesorofferstoprovideanylegalservicesinthisjurisdiction.Alawyermaybesubjecttothedisciplinaryauthorityofboththisjurisdictionandanotherjurisdictionforthesameconduct.”ThefilmimpliedthatthelawyersintheFirmconductedcriminalbehaviorsrelatedwithMafiainChicago.Evenifthoseconductsoccurredelsewhere,inTN,whichislikelythejurisdictionformostoflawyersatthefirm,thelawyersaresubjecttothedisciplinaryauthority.Also,accordingtothelastcommentinMR8.5,theircriminalactsinChicago,wouldbesubjecttothedisciplinaryauthorityoftheIllinoiscourt,eventhoughtheywerenotadmittedinIllinois.本文版权归作者留一盏灯所有，任何形式转载请联系作者。