Ethics 的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则

  • 打印页面

Ethics 的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则 (Effective 2/1/07)

自2007年2月1日起,D.C. 上诉法院修订了D.C. 这是自1月1日《靠谱的足球滚球平台》首次生效以来,对《靠谱的足球滚球平台》进行的最全面的修订, 1991. Although the vast majority of opinions issued by the D.C. 在经修订的规则生效日期前,大靠谱的滚球平台公会法律道德委员会(“委员会”)基本上不受修订的影响, there are some that simply no longer provide complete guidance in light of the recent changes. 它是至关重要的, 因此, 任何寻求委员会意见指导的人应特别注意,自该意见发表以来,《靠谱的足球滚球平台》或《靠谱的足球滚球平台》在相关方面发生改变的可能性. Some of the changes are “non-substantive,” such as the renumbering of a Rule section or a Comment. 在这种情况下, 委员会的意见仍然有效, even though a particular citation to a Rule or a Comment may no longer be consistent with the current version. The Committee urges anyone consulting an opinion to read it in light of the revised 规则 and Comments. 在下表中, 委员会已经确定了这些意见, 在它的判断, 在实质上受经修订的规则影响:

的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则 (Effective 2/1/07)
的意见
相关的变化
意见211: Fee Agreements; Mandatory Arbitration Clauses D.C. 规则1.已对第8(g)(2)条作出修订,以澄清靠谱的滚球平台可在何种条件下解决有关渎职的索赔或潜在索赔. 评论[13]现在解释说,该规则并不禁止靠谱的滚球平台与客户就法律事故索赔达成强制仲裁协议, and there is no requirement that the client have separate counsel before such an agreement is permissible.
意见212:代理前客户的靠谱的滚球平台离开靠谱的滚球平台事务所后,靠谱的滚球平台事务所在与原客户实质性相关的事项中对原客户不利的陈述 D.C. 规则1.10(c)现在允许靠谱的滚球平台事务所代理一个人,而该人的利益与由一名以前与该靠谱的滚球平台事务所有关联的靠谱的滚球平台所代理的客户的利益直接相反, so long as none of the remaining lawyers has any information protected by D.C. 规则1.那对这件事很重要.
意见217: Multiple Representation; Intermediation D.C. 规则2.2人被淘汰了, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. 规则1.7.
意见218: Retainer Agreement Providing for Mandatory Arbitration of Fee Disputes Is Not Unethical 请评论[1]至D.C. 规则1.8现在解释(a)段的要求不适用于客户与靠谱的滚球平台之间的普通费用安排, D.C. 规则1.5. 另外,请将[13]评论给D.C. 规则1.故选D.C. 规则1.8 generally permits lawyers to enter into agreements to arbitrate any legal malpractice claim. 
意见219:道德义务冲突 D.C. 规则1.6(d)现在允许服务被用于推进犯罪或欺诈的靠谱的滚球平台在特定情况下披露客户的机密和秘密,以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户的犯罪或欺诈造成的损害. Because a lawyer is now permitted to make certain disclosures under D.C. 规则1.6、D项下的披露义务.C. 规则4.1 (b)和3.3(d) – both of which are expressly made subject to the obligations under D.C. 规则1.6 -现在可能更广泛. 
意见232:多个客户/刑事案件 D.C. 规则1.7(c)已修订,要求每一位可能受影响的客户对(b)段禁止的陈述提供知情同意,并要求靠谱的滚球平台合理地相信,该靠谱的滚球平台将能够为每一位受影响的客户提供称职和勤勉的陈述. 
意见238:书面费用协议 D.C. 规则1.5(b)已修订,要求书面费用协议不仅要描述费用的基础或费率,还要描述靠谱的滚球平台代理的范围和客户将负责的费用.
意见243:离婚案件的共同代表 D.C. 规则2.2人被淘汰了, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. 规则1.7.
意见253: Referral Fee Arrangement Between Law Firms and Insurance Companies D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 作为一个结果, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, the discussion about the relationship between the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers in D.C. 规则5.4、D项规定.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) that had permitted lawyers to pay referral fees to intermediaries under certain conditions.
意见264: Refunds of Special Retainers; Commingling of Such Funds with the General Funds of the Law Firm Upon Receipt D.C. 规则1.15(d) has been revised significantly since this opinion was issued. 特别是,D.C. 规则1.15(d) now provides that advances of unearned fees and unincurred costs shall be treated as property 的客户端. The opinion’s contrary determination was based on a prior version of D.C. 规则1.15(d).[1]

 

意见273: Ethical Considerations of Lawyers Moving from One Private Law Firm to Another D.C. 规则1.10 (c)现在允许公司代表残疾人利益前客户实质性不利的事项,或显著相关的是一样的,以前相关靠谱的滚球平台代表客户在公司剩余的靠谱的滚球平台都没有任何信息保护的D.C. 规则1.那对这件事很重要. The opinion’s contrary conclusion was based on the prior version of D.C. 规则1.10(c).   
意见275:机密信息的接收限制了其他客户在相同或实质上相关的事项上的后续陈述,除非可以建立屏幕 D.C. 规则1.10(a) no longer contains the potential-client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. 这个例外现在包含在一个新的规则中,D.C. 规则1.18(d).
意见279: Availability of Screening as Cure for Imputed Disqualification D.C. 规则1.10(a) no longer contains the potential client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. 这个例外现在包含在一个新的规则中,D.C. 规则1.18(d).
意见286:临时介绍费 D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 意见书中靠谱的足球滚球平台该规则如何标志着与先前的道德法律的背离,以及如何授权向他人支付某些款项以推荐合法业务的讨论已不再适用.
意见294: 退休靠谱的滚球平台出售靠谱的滚球平台执业 D.C. 规则1.第17条是新法规,适用于法律业务的销售. 这个规则(连同评论[10])授权销售的法律实践,只要不是由销售增加收费之间的转移和现有客户安排靠谱的滚球平台和客户端转移到费用和采购工作的范围是荣幸的靠谱的滚球平台. 
意见296: Joint Representation: Confidentiality of Information D.C. 规则2.2被删除,注释[14]-[18]到D.C. 规则1.7 have been added to address special considerations in common representation. 此外,维.C. 规则1.6(d)现在允许服务被用于推进犯罪或欺诈的靠谱的滚球平台在特定情况下披露客户的机密和秘密,以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户的犯罪或欺诈造成的损害.
意见299: Duty of Confidentiality to the Corporate Client That Has Ceased Operations D.C. 规则1.6(d)现在允许服务被用于推进犯罪或欺诈的靠谱的滚球平台在特定情况下披露客户的机密和秘密,以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户的犯罪或欺诈造成的损害.
意见302: Soliciting Plaintiffs for Class Action Lawsuits or Obtaining Legal Work Through Internet-Based Web Pages D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 作为一个结果, 部分意见不再适用——特别是靠谱的足球滚球平台靠谱的滚球平台必须采取的步骤的讨论,当支付费用参加基于网络的投标服务,以满足D的条件.C. 规则7.1(b)(5).
意见306: Practicing Law While Simultaneously Selling Insurance D.C. 规则5.7是新的. 它规定,靠谱的滚球平台在提供与提供法律服务同时合理履行且与提供法律服务有关的服务时,应遵守《靠谱的足球滚球平台》. 这一观点与D一致.C. 规则5.7, but it relied only on Comment [25] (now renumbered [36]) to D.C. 规则1.7 for the conclusion that a lawyer may sell insurance products to clients so long as the lawyer makes full disclosure, 获得同意, and concludes that his or her professional judgment on behalf 的客户端 will not be adversely affected.
意见307: Participation in Government Program Requiring Payment of Percentage of Fee D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 作为一个结果, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, 讨论靠谱的滚球平台付费参加政府运营的法律服务计划时,必须采取的步骤,以满足D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5).
意见311: Choice-of-Law 规则 for Professional Conduct in Non-Judicial Proceedings D.C. 规则8.5(b)(1)现在更广泛地适用于“审裁处未决事项”,而非仅适用于“靠谱的滚球平台已获准执业的法庭诉讼”.”
意见329: 非营利组织 Organization Fee Arrangement with an Attorney to Whom It Refers Matters D.C. 规则5.4(a)(5) now provides that a lawyer may share legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, 保留, 根据《靠谱的足球滚球平台》(Internal Revenue Code)第501(c)(3)条的规定免税. 该意见的要求是,只允许报销非营利组织的实际支出,而不提供所收取费用的一部分,这是没有必要的,因为D.C. 规则5.4(a)(5) now expressly authorizes the sharing of legal fees under these circumstances.

[1]当264号意见在1996年出版时,D.C. 规则1.15(d) provided that “[a]dvances of legal fees and costs become the property of the lawyer upon receipt. 任何未赚的预付费用必须在靠谱的滚球平台服务终止时按照第一条的规定返还给客户.16(d).“维.C. 上诉法院修改了D.C. 规则1.15(d), 1月1日起, 2000, 澄清,, 除非客户同意另一种不同的安排,否则未赚得的预支费用和未发生的费用应按(a)款的规定视为客户的财产,直至已赚得或已发生为止.尽管D.C. Court of Appeals also made some minor modifications to D.C. 规则1.15(d) in the most recent amendments that became effective on February 1, 2007, the earlier amendments to the rule are the ones directly relevant to 意见264.

天际线