RPC Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, or Supervisory LawyersPosted On Jun 14 2014
RPC 5.1 says: (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct …
“Foreclosure lawyer appeals reprimand tied to ‘robo-signing’ cases”Posted On Jun 13 2014
On June 12, 2014, the Bangor Daily News reported that a Maine lawyer has been disciplined for not taking action to stop foreclosure proceedings he was involved in which were based upon faulty, robo-signed affidavits. Decision and Order of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.
Tennessee Lawyer Discipline System — Due Process RevisitedPosted On Jun 13 2014
In a recent post, the due process of the Tennessee lawyer discipline system was an issue in discipline system case. The court held that due process was not denied a lawyer where lawyer investigation, investigation, prosecution and adjudication were in the hands of the Tennessee Supreme Court, one entity. The discipline system created by Supreme Court is found in Supreme Court Rule 9. Nowhere is a Tennessee bar association mentioned. That is to say, Rule 9 does not require the involvement a bar association in the operation of Rule 9. It should also be noted that the rules of professional …
Due Process and the Tennesee Lawyer Discipline SystemPosted On Jun 12 2014
The Supreme Court of Tennessee recently confronted the issue of whether the state’s lawyer discipline system violated due process. See Long v. Board of Professional Responsibility, “Long contended that Rule 9 is unconstitutional and violates his due process rights because Rule 9 combines investigative, enforcement, and adjudicative authority in the same agency; creates a financial incentive for the Board to pursue formal disciplinary proceedings; and gives rise to an institutional bias in favor of finding guilt and imposing discipline.” The court said that “[b]ecause the investigatory/enforcement responsibilities and the adjudicative responsibilities are functionally separate within the Board, Rule 9 does …
WSBA Washington Lawyer Discipline SystemPosted On Jun 11 2014
The Washington State Bar Association has, as one of its primary purposes, the discipline of lawyers who practice law in the state of Washington. Over 35% of the WSBA’s budget, each year is devoted to the Washington Lawyer Discipline System. The Washington Lawyer Discipline System has two main parts: Prosecution and adjudication. Both parts are controlled by the WSBA. That is to say, the WSBA is in command of the prosecution of errant Washington lawyers and the adjudication of the WSBA prosecutions. WSBA lawyer sanctions consisting of either suspension or disbarment may be appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court.