Proposed Opinion Interim No. 06-0004 considers: If an attorney receives from a non-party a confidential communication between opposing counsel and opposing counsel’s client, what should the attorney do if the attorney reasonably believes that the communication may not be privileged because of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
SOURCE: |
State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct |
DEADLINE: |
Apr. 4 |
CONTACT: |
Angela Marlaud
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-538-2116
415-538-2171(fax)
angela.marlaud@calbar.ca.gov |
A consumer alert will be posted on the online profile page of any lawyer charged with major misappropriation, theft of $25,000 or more of client funds.
SOURCE: |
Regulation, Admissions & Discipline Committee |
DEADLINE: |
Apr. 21 |
CONTACT: |
Jill Sperber
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-538-2023
415-538-1168 (fax)
jill.sperber@calbar.ca.gov |
Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 10-0002 considers whether consent under the “no contact” rule of California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 may be implied or must it be provided expressly? If consent may be implied, how is implied consent determined?
SOURCE: |
State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct |
DEADLINE: |
June 28 |
CONTACT: |
Angela Marlaud
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-538-2116
415-538-2171 (fax)
angela.marlaud@calbar.ca.gov |