Share

Share this on Twitter Share this on Facebook Share this on Linked In Share this by Email
 
Public Comment

Deceitful Conduct

Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0002 considers: Has an attorney engaged in deceitful conduct by not alerting opposing counsel of: (A) an apparent material error made by opposing counsel in contract language; or (B) a material change made by the attorney in contract language?

Revised Proposed Guidelines for Accredited Law Schools

The proposed guidelines would require that California Accredited Law Schools maintain a specified minimum, cumulative California bar examination pass rate. When compared to the first version of the proposed guidelines circulated earlier for public comment, the revised proposed version replaces the 50 percent minimally compliant rate with a 40 percent minimum CBEPR, requires the schools to begin calculating and reporting their respective CBEPRs with the submission of their 2013 Annual Compliance Reports and puts other procedures in place to enforce the rules.

Open Meetings Rules

Proposed revisions to State Bar Rules Title 6, Division 2, Chapter 1 would provide greater public access to State Bar meetings, consistent with the open meeting requirements of the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 11120 et seq.). The proposed amendments would:

  • Eliminate the closed meeting exception for board committees for advice of counsel
  • Prohibit the Board from voting by secret ballot when electing its officers

Right to Arbitration Form

A new State Bar form concerning fee arbitration is proposed to change the name of the form and make other clarifying changes.

Confidential Information and Unsolicited E-mail Correspondence

Proposed Formal 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?