|
| November 23–29, 2009 | Volume 7 Issue 48 |
|
In the Capitol 12/2 House Judiciary Complete Committee Meeting List In the Hall of Justice Rule Amendments |
Proposed Amendments Alternative B is a new revision of MRPC 1.5 that has been proposed by the Attorney Grievance Commission. Changes in the existing rule are indicated by overstriking and underlining. The accompanying comment from the commission explains the proposed changes. The proposed changes in current MRPC 1.7 are similar in many respects to the version of MRPC 1.7 that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The additions to the current rule and the expanded commentary (indicated by overstriking and underlining) are intended to provide additional guidance to lawyers and to make the conflict-of-interest doctrine less difficult to understand and apply with regard to current clients. For example, proposed paragraph (b) contains more specific requirements regarding the circumstances in which a lawyer may represent a client despite the existence of a conflict of interest, including the requirement of written consent. Proposed MRPC 1.8 is a similar but shorter version of the proposal that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The proposed rule is substantially similar to current MRPC 1.8, although the title has been changed and the accompanying commentary has been expanded considerably. In addition, proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require that a client be advised in writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel in a transaction, and paragraph (j) clarifies that a prohibition that applies to one lawyer in a firm applies to all lawyers in the firm. There is no equivalent to proposed MRPC 2.4 in the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The proposal is virtually identical to the version that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The proposed rule is designed to help parties involved in alternative dispute resolution to better understand the role of a lawyer serving as a third-party neutral. Proposed MRPC 3.1 is similar to the proposed revision that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The proposal makes no changes in the current rule, but modifies the accompanying commentary to clarify that a lawyer is not responsible for a client’s subjective motivation. The proposed changes in MRPC 3.3 are similar to those in the proposal that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The manner in which the current rule would be modified (indicated by overstriking and underlining) includes specifying in paragraph (a)(1) that a lawyer shall not knowingly “fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law,” and substituting proposed paragraph (b) for current paragraph (a)(2), which deals with a disclosure that is “necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.” Proposed MRPC 3.4 and the accompanying commentary are nearly identical to the current Michigan rule and to the proposed revision that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. One difference is the clarification in proposed paragraph (f)(1) that a lawyer may not ask someone other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless the person is “an employee or other agent of a client for the purposes of MRE 801(d)(2)(D).” Proposed MRPC 3.5 is similar to the proposed revision that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. It differs from the current rule primarily because of the addition of paragraph (c), which addresses the issue of lawyers contacting jurors and prospective jurors after the jury is discharged. Alternative A is a similar but abbreviated version of the proposed revision of MRPC 3.6 that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. It expands the current rule considerably by moving substantial portions of the current commentary into the rule itself. See, for example, proposed paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) is substantially the same as the current rule, except that the “reasonable lawyer” standard is substituted for the “reasonable person” standard. Alternative B is the proposed revision of MRPC 3.6 that was submitted by the State Bar of Michigan and published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The proposed changes in the current rule are indicated by overstriking and underlining. Alternative B is longer than Alternative A and includes several additional provisions, including proposed paragraph (c), which specifically would allow a statement “that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client,” and proposed paragraph (d), which specifies that a lawyer associated with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) may not make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a). Alternative B also includes longer accompanying commentary than Alternative A. Proposed MRPC 5.4 is similar to the proposed revision that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. It differs from the current rule primarily because of the addition of proposed paragraph (a)(4), which specifically allows a lawyer to “share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter.” Proposed MRPC 5.5 is essentially the same proposal that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. Both the rule and the accompanying commentary are much longer than the current rule and commentary. The rule sets specific guidelines for out-of-state lawyers who are appearing temporarily in Michigan, and is intended to work in conjunction with MRPC 8.5. See, also, MCR 8.126 and MCR 9.108(E)(8). There is no equivalent to proposed MRPC 5.7 in the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The proposal is substantially the same as the version that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The underlying presumption of the proposed rule is that the MRPCs apply whenever a lawyer performs law-related services or controls an entity that does so. The accompanying commentary explains that the presumption may be rebutted only if the lawyer carefully informs the consumer which services are which and clarifies that no client-lawyer relationship exists with respect to ancillary services. There is no equivalent to proposed MRPC 6.6 in the current Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The proposal is substantially the same as the proposal that was published for comment as MRPC 6.5 on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. The proposed rule addresses concerns that a strict application of conflict-of-interest rules may deter lawyers from volunteering to provide short-term legal services through nonprofit organizations, court-related programs, and similar other endeavors such as legal-advice hotlines. Proposed MRPC 8.5 is similar to the proposed revision that was published for comment on July 2, 2004, in ADM File No. 2003-62. It differs considerably from the current rule, primarily by the addition of a separate section on choice of law. The proposed rule specifically gives discipline authorities jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the ethics violations of attorneys temporarily admitted to practice in Michigan. The rule is intended to work in conjunction with MRPC 5.5. See, also, MCR 8.126 and MCR 9.108(E)(8). At the Bar Real Property Law Section to Host 2010 Winter Conference on “Being an Agent of Change” in Arizona Federal News State News New Ethics Rule Divides Michigan Supreme Court Lawmaker Calls for State Taxes Overhaul |
|
Links of Interest |