You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

June 30, 2003

Law School Substance Abuse Still High

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 3:46 pm

The New York Law Journal has an article today entitled Despite ’93 Report, Substance Abuse Persists at Law Schools (full text available with free registration for e-newsletter) (by Thomas Adcock, 6/30/03).  Honestly, I haven’t worried about this issue before, but it could clearly have a strong impact on the future of the profession and its clients (as could the Generation’s attitudes towards topics like honesty & cheating, service & entitlement — yikes!).

The NYLJ article covers a conference held on June 24th, which was hosted by Rochester, NY, attorney James C. Moore, and co-sponsored by the New York State Bar Association, the City Bar, and bar groups from seven surrounding states. Moore said the event was the first of its kind nationally. According to the NYLJ article:

  • “Ten years after U.S. law schools received a startling white paper on alcohol and drug abuse among students and faculty, there seems to be no firm evidence of improvement. Last week, at a gathering of campus administrators at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the focus was on what — if anything — schools can do to address substance abuse problems in this high-stress population earlier and more effectively.”
  • “According to several studies, attorneys are prone to the diseases of alcoholism and drug addiction at a ratio greater than the general population. The studies suggest this is due to the unusually high pressure of the profession.”
  • Shannon Salinas, dean of students at Columbia Law School, noted “If I put on a program about alcoholism, I don’t think any [students] would come.” Instead, Salinas believes that instruction in substance abuse should be incorporated into professional responsibility and ethics courses. In addition, she said, “The school has a big hammer,” by which she meant the reckoning during bar certification proceedings. “If you don’t take care of yourself, something may happen, and you’ll jeopardize your future. The bar notice issue is a convenient tool for law school administrators.”
  • John A. Sebert, former dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law, recommended that “Law schools should at least develop a written alcohol policy.” He suggested that the AALS report, with appendices containing formal policies adopted at some schools, might be re-released this fall, “to remind the deans — again.”

On a related topic, this month’s issue of the DC Bar’s magazine, Washington Lawyer, has a Bar Counsel column titled Factoring Disabilities Into Discipline: A Special Equation.  In it, Joyce E. Peters explains the complications that arise when substance abuse, mental illness or other disabilities are brought into the disciplinary process. Also, if you’re looking for an Articles Archive for Lawyers Seeking Counseling on substance abuse, depression, or stress, you can find a good one on the DCBar website.

New Arizona Rules Reject the Ethics 2000 Fee Conspiracy

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 10:30 am

In a major victory for p/i clients and foes of the standard contingency fee, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted new Rules of Professional Conduct earlier this month that include fee provisions significantly different from those recommended by the ABA’s Ethics 2000 Commission and incorporated in the ABA’s New Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  The new AZ Rules, were adopted on June 6, 2003, and will be effective as of December 01, 2003.

As I have argued here, the Ethics 2000 process constituted concerted action to restrain competition over contingency fee levels. The changes made by the ABA and Ethics 2000 in Rule 1.5 of the Model Rules “make it clear that the ABA has capitulated to defenders of the ‘standard’ contingency fee. The approved Rule changes reverse recent attempts within the ABA, and by client advocates across the nation, to apply traditional ethical and fiduciary duties to the use of contingency fees.”

The most dramatic improvement in the new Arizona version of Rule 1.5 is its change to the traditional 8th factor to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee. Rule 1.5(a)(8) no longer has the cryptic phrase “whether the fee is fixed or contingent.” As of Dec. 1, 2003, the factor to be considered is “the degree of risk assumed by the lawyer.” Combined with factor (1)’s consideration of “the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly,” it is now clear in Arizona that the reasonableness of a contingency fee will depend on how much risk the lawyer assumed of working extensive hours without adequate pay, and how much skill and exertion it will take to perform the task.   That makes applying a “standard” fee to each client unethical.

In addition, the new AZ Rule restores the clause “including consideration of the degree of risk assumed by the lawyer at the outset of the representation” to a new Commentary section [3], which discusses the reasonableness standard as applied to contingency fees. The final version of Ethics 2000’s proposal removed the clause, which had been part of previous drafts.

  • Arizona also refused to follow Ethics 2000’s gutting of the current Commentary section [3] — which is now renumbered as section [5].  The ABA deleted the statement that “When there is doubt whether a contingent fee is consistent with the client’s best interest, the lawyer should offer the client alternative bases for the fee and explain their implications.” The Arizona version keeps the sentence, which supported the obigations outlined in the landmark ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 94-389 [described here], except for changing the word “offer” to “discuss with.”

Thanks to the example of the Arizona Supreme Court, States that are “uncomfortable” with the ABA’s changes to Model Rule 1.5 now have a model to use to spur competition and client choice over the level and use of contingency fees.  Lawyers, clients and consumer advocates who were disappointed and appalled by the Ethics 2000 conspiracy to defend the standard contingency fee should let the rule-making bodies in their own states know about the Arizona alternative.

The Arizona choice is in stark contrast to the path taken by North Carolina’s Supreme Court earlier this year, when it became the first state to consider the Ethics 2000 model rules and act upon the proposals. A black-line version of the North Carolina Rules (effective as of March 1, 2003) can be found hereNC seems to have joined the contingency fee conspiracy.

Two Cents from Jackie Cliente: The ABA showed its disdain for the average client, when the House of Delegates rejected a proposal by Ethics 2000 that clients be given a written statement of the hourly or flat fee that would be charged by their lawyer (despite an exemption for fees likely to total less than $500). The new Arizona Rule 1.5 (b) does include the requirement of a written statement of the basis or rate of the fee to be charged.

Powered by WordPress