May 18, 2012

No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility with Attorney General John Suthers

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has never shied away from tackling the tough issues surrounding the powerful role of public prosecutors in the United States. In 2008, he published a book, No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility, that drew on his personal experiences as a local, state, and federal prosecutor, with insights on how to make the system better for everyone involved. The book also explored some of the more controversial calls for reform, including drug legalization. Written in straightforward terms, it provides a fascinating look at the intricacies of crime and punishment.

On May 22, 2012, Suthers will speak at a special 1-hour Literary Lawyers CLE presentation on the issues in his book and thoughts on recent cases and experiences. He will not only speak to the immense and unique power that prosecutors have, but the effects on the victims, perpetrators, and the public. In addition, prosecution ethics will be discussed, including zealous prosecution and the effects of advancing technology.

Public scrutiny has also increasingly come into play for prosecutors, as high-profile cases like the Hayman fire are played out in the press and public arena. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear Attorney General Suthers’ insights first hand. All attendees will also receive a copy of his book.

CLE Program: No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility with John Suthers (Literary Lawyers Series)

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, May 22. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

 

CBA Ethics Committee Updates Formal Opinion 68, “Conflicts of Interest; Propriety of Multiple Representation”

The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee has been working on updating their Formal Ethics Opinions in order to reflect changes in the law, including the 2008 revision to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. As part of that effort, the Ethics Committee released an updated version of Formal Opinion 68, “Conflicts of Interest; Propriety of Multiple Representation” in December 2011, and it was published in the March 2012 issue of The Colorado Lawyer.

Formal Opinion 68 addresses four specific conflict situations:

1) representation of both a husband and wife in negotiating a property settlement before dissolution proceedings commence;
2) representation of both the buyer and seller in a residential real estate transaction;
3) representation of both the buyer and seller of a business; and
4) representation of individuals in drafting an entity agreement, and representation of solely an entity in its formation.

The Ethics Committee opines that, in the first scenario, the dual representation would be impermissible under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC or Rules) because even if the divorce settlement agreement is uncontested, it must be approved by the court, and counsel cannot represent two parties whose interests are adverse under Colo. RPC 1.7.

In the second, third, and fourth scenarios, which are all transactional, the Ethics Committee declines to issue a blanket prohibition on representing both parties to the proposed transactions, but rather notes that each individual situation will require a thorough analysis of the propriety of the representation.

Opinion 68 provides a thoughtful and detailed evaluation of Colo. RPC 1.7 and its comments. It thoroughly examines informed consent, including when and whether it is appropriate, what can be consented to, how to obtain informed consent, the need to obtain new consent when there are situational changes, and confirmation in writing. Each scenario listed above is explored in depth, and the propriety of dual representation is examined for all for sample scenarios. The message of the Ethics Committee is clear: an attorney must examine the specific scenario involving a concurrent conflict of interest with the utmost scrutiny and caution prior to undertaking representation of conflicting parties.

The Ethics Committee develops its formal opinions as a means for providing Colorado attorneys with guidance. However, they issue the following caveat:

Formal Ethics Opinions are issued for advisory purposes only and are not in any way binding on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, the Attorney Regulation Committee, or the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, and do not provide protection against disciplinary actions.

Paper Shredding and Electronics Recycling Day Coming in June

Join the Denver Bar Association for their annual paper shredding and electronic recycling day on June 6, 2012, from 3:30 – 5:30 pm. Dispose of your sensitive client and case information at this free event in the parking lot east of the DBA offices, located at 1900 Grant Street in Denver.

A donation of one food item or $2.00 is requested per box or electronic item. All contributions benefit Metro CareRing, a hunger relief organization that operates one of the largest food pantries in Denver.

There is a limit of 20 boxes (no 3-ring binders) and five electronic items per vehicle. Click here for more information on acceptable items for recycling. Make sure all hard drives are wiped clean before you recycle them.

Click here for more information.

Discounted Legal Services — Do You Really Want to Be the Daily Deal?

The number of internet-based “Deal of the Day” websites has multiplied exponentially in recent years—Groupon, Living Social, Eversave, and Get My Perks are only a small sample. Even more numerous than the discount sites are the types of goods and services that are available for purchase. You can get deals on sports tickets, gardening supplies, kids’ birthday party packages, spas, restaurants—practically everything you can think of. But what about legal services?

Advertising is key to a successful practice for most attorneys, and a chance to spread the word about a legal practice to the wide audience that services like Groupon reaches is hard to pass up. The question arises, however:

Is it ethical to discount legal services?

What types of legal services can be discounted? Is profit sharing ethical in an advertising context? How are fees handled if the discount is never redeemed?

On Monday, April 16, Amy DeVan and Ericka Englert of the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel will be in the CBA-CLE classroom to discuss the ethical implications of using Groupon or other daily deal websites to advertise legal services. Potentially implicated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct will be discussed, including perspectives from other jurisdictions and implications for Colorado attorneys. Join us on Monday to hear answers to your questions about the ethical implications of daily deals.

CLE Program: Ethics of Daily Deals and “Groupon” Marketing

This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, April 16. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Report from the ABA House of Delegates Meetings at the 2012 Midyear Meeting in New Orleans

I have the privilege of serving the Denver Bar Association as a delegate to the American Bar Association (“ABA”) House of Delegates.  The ABA House of Delegates met at the ABA’s midyear meeting held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 6, 2012.  This Article summarizes the House of Delegates events at the midyear meeting and the action taken by the House.

The Midyear Meeting was very well-attended.  It had the best reported attendance on record.  The ABA sponsored numerous programs on issues such as the Ethics 20/20 commission, the state court funding crisis, and efforts to improve access to justice.  There were many important issues addressed by the House of Delegates at the midyear meeting.  This Article summarizes a few of them.

Ethics 20/20 Commission’s White Papers and Proposals Relating to the Ethics of Litigation Financing, Non-Lawyer Ownership of Law Firms, Outsourcing, and the Use of Technology of Mobile Devices

Before the House of Delegates convened, the Ethics 20/20 Commission sent information around to the delegates regarding the work of the Commission and its proposals.  Specifically, the Commission informed the delegates of its plan to bifurcate its presentation of proposals to help facilitate the House of Delegates’ consideration of the Commission’s recommendations.  The decision to bifurcate the presentation of proposals foretells a concern that some of the Commission’s proposals will be controversial and will generate much discussion and debate.

Indeed, from the preview that the Commission has provided, some of the issues that the Commission will put before the House will generate much discussion.  The Commission has produced white papers that discuss many of the complex ethical issues that cannot effectively be addressed through changes to Model Rules.  Specifically, one of the Commission’s white papers discusses ethical issues involved with litigation financing, including issues regarding conflicts of interest, a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege, and rules regulating the exercise of the lawyer’s independent judgment.  The Commission’ white paper can be found by clicking here.

The Commission also is working on proposals relating to alternative business structures for law firms, outsourcing of legal services and confidentiality-related ethics issues arising from lawyers’ use of technology. Additionally, the Commission also is working on a model rule relating to lawyers’ obligations to retain client files.  An issues paper regarding alternative business structures for law firms – including non-lawyer ownership of law firms – has been distributed by the Commission.  It can be found by clicking here.

During the House of Delegates meeting, Former ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm addressed the House about the Commission’s progress.  President Lamm explained that numerous various roundtable sessions and meetings have been held around the country.  She explained that formal recommendations will be presented at the annual meeting in 2012 and at the midyear meeting in 2013.  President Lamm explained that one of the Commission’s more controversial issues is whether non-lawyers should be allowed under legal ethics rules to have a limited ownership interest in law firms in the United States.  This issue has been discussed extensively in Colorado previously.

President Lamm explained that the Commission is considering other issues relating to the need to balance the convenience and efficiencies inherent in a lawyer’s use of new technologies, while also preserving the lawyer-client relationship, confidentiality, competence and the values of the profession.  President Lamm explained that the Commission plans in presenting proposals on each of these issues for consideration by the House of Delegates.  All interested members of the Bar should get in touch with me or other Colorado delegates to discuss any concerns about any of the issues that are being considered by the Ethics 20/20 Commission, or the proposals that are likely coming from the Commission.

Summary of the House of Delegates

After the House of Delegates convened on February 6, 2012, the Delegates were greeted by Mitchell Landrieu, the Mayor of New Orleans, who also is a lawyer.  Mayor Landrieu talked about the challenges that the city has been through in recent years, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the BP oil spill.  Mayor Landrieu quipped that the city is “waiting for locusts now.”  Mayor Landrieu’s speech was interesting and insightful, explaining that New Orleans is truly resilient and has become the “a laboratory for innovation and change,” because of the disasters it has suffered.  Mayor Landrieu’s speech was an excellent way to kick-off the work of the House.

After the Mayor’s speech and some other introductory actions, the House got to work debating and voting on resolutions before the House.  The House adopted a number of important resolutions, including:

  • Resolution 101A, which adopted the black letter ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party which provide a framework through which legislatures, courts acting in their supervisory capacity and administrative agencies can balance the needs of law enforcement and the interests of privacy, freedom of expression and social participation.
  • Resolution 101B, which urged governments at various levels to require laboratories producing reports for use in criminal trials to adopt pretrial discovery procedures requiring comprehensive and comprehensible laboratory and forensic science reports, and listed relevant factors to be included in such reports.
  • Resolution 101C, which urged trial judges who have decided to admit expert testimony to consider a number of factors in determining the manner in which that evidence should be presented to the jury, and also provided guidance about how to instruct the jury in its evaluation of expert scientific testimony in criminal and delinquency proceedings.
  • Resolution 101F, which supported legislation, policies and practices that allow equal and uniform access to therapeutic courts and problem-solving sentencing alternatives, such as drug treatment and anger management counseling, regardless of the custody or detention status of the individual.
  • Resolution 113, which called for adoption as ABA policy uniform standards for language access in courts.  The policy provides clear guidance to courts in designing, implementing, and enforcing a comprehensive system of language access services that is suited to the need in the communities they serve.
  • Resolution 102B, which approved the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2011, as an appropriate Act for those states desiring to adopt the specific substantive law suggested therein.  The Uniform Act provides rules for the authentication and preservation of electronic legal material.
  • Resolution 108, which urged state and territorial bar admission authorities to adopt rules and procedures to accommodate the unique needs of military spouse attorneys who move frequently in support of the nation’s defenses.
  • Resolution 111, which urged entities that administer a law school admission test to provide appropriate accommodations for a test taker with a disability to best ensure the exam reflects what the test is designed to measure and not the test taker’s disability.
  • Resolution 302, which supported the principle that “private” lawyers representing governmental entities are entitled to claim the same qualified immunity provided “government” lawyers when they are acting “under color of state law.”  This issue is particularly important given that there is a pending case before the United States Supreme Court considering this question.  See Filarsky v. Delia, U.S. No. 10-1018, argued 1/17/2012.

A summary of the resolutions adopted by the House can be found by clicking here.  Additionally, I can provide a copy of the resolutions to any interested reader. Contact me if interested.

Statement from President Robinson

In addition to this important work, the House of Delegates heard from Bill Robinson, President of the ABA.  President Robinson explained that the most pressing issue facing the legal system today is under-funding of the courts, which is at a crisis level.  President Robinson urged all ABA members to consider the under-funding crisis to be a threat to our liberty and rule of law.  President Robinson explained the ABA’s efforts to combat this crisis, including its extensive education efforts and its efforts to increase public awareness about the crisis.  Additionally, the ABA has made the crisis the core of the law day events, which will focus on the theme: “No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom.”

Nomination of James Silkenat as President-Elect

Additionally, the nominating committee announced that James Silkenat of New York was nominated to be President-Elect Designee of the ABA.  The House of Delegates will vote on his nomination at the Annual Meeting in Chicago this August.  If elected, Mr. Silkenat will serve a one-year term as President beginning in August, 2013.  All members of the Bar are urged to give any input on Mr. Silkenat to me or any of the other Colorado delegates.

Other Matters

Finally, the House of Delegates also considered other matters.  Those other matters included a report from the ABA’s Executive Director, Jack Rives, and a report from the ABA’s treasurer.  The House also heard from Chief Judge Washington, who is the President of the Conference of Chief Justices.  Chief Judge Washington spoke about language access to the courts.  He also discussed the core focuses of the Conference, which are judicial independence and civics education.

Conclusion

I hope this Article sufficiently highlighted many of the more interesting or important the agenda items considered by the House of Delegates at the midyear meeting in New Orleans.  I appreciate all input that any members of the Denver Bar Association have regarding any of the issues that have been considered, or will be considered, by the ABA House of Delegates.

The American Bar Association is offering a free trial membership in the ABA and in a section of the ABA. Sign up here.

The Docket eFile brings features from your favorite Denver Bar Association publication to you digitally. When you see the logo, you’re reading an article from The Docket. You’ll also still be able to read the full issue online at denbar.org/docket.

Coach’s Corner: Do Your Due Diligence on New Clients

Under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if “the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client.”

However, withdrawing from a representation already begun is extremely difficult, as much of the rest of Rule 1.16 attests. An attempt to withdraw without adequate communication about and careful records of the difficulty that the client has caused — whether for nonpayment of fees, lack of cooperation or some other failing — may bring a state bar disciplinary action requiring future work without pay to fulfill ethical obligations toward the client.

Withdrawal cannot be done without reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering the client’s papers and property and refunding any advance payment of fees that have not been earned.

The simple fact is that no lawyer needs to contend with such headaches. The antidote to withdrawal is to undertake full due diligence before entering into a formal engagement agreement with the client. At the time of engagement, a lawyer must determine whether the goals of the client are understood and can be met. This also requires determining whether the client will facilitate achieving those goals. And facilitation, as Rule 1.16 suggests, means paying the bill and cooperating with the lawyer.

Due diligence on the client’s willingness and ability to pay should be documented in the initial engagement agreement. This investigation is a step that too many lawyers neglect, though it can be as simple as requesting a credit report from one of the consumer credit agencies or from a business credit reporter such as Dun & Bradstreet.

Once it is clear that prospective clients can pay, a signed engagement stating the terms and responsibilities for payment attests that they will pay. Clients who cannot or will not sign a fee agreement or pay a retainer, or who want to start now and pay later, should be considered suspect.

Cooperation is a similar issue. Avoid a client with unrealistic expectations or demands. Discussing engagement terms will frequently uncover the client who will in the future express irritation with delay, chronically complain about everything, demand constant or instant attention or expect unrealistic or abnormal hand-holding. Telltale signs are when prospective clients:

  • insist that their matter is “life and death”; such clients will often be future sources of last minute emergencies that at best are irritating and at worst can result in errors under pressures;
  • use pressure tactics to urge that their matter be handled immediately.
  • demonstrate a bad attitude toward lawyers and the judicial system, or suggest that they know better than the lawyer what needs to be done; and/or
  • cannot articulate what they want their lawyer to achieve.

Due diligence is a business essential. When you determine that a client will perceive what you do as being worthwhile and valuable, you are more likely to have successful engagements and a financially successful firm. Conversely, rejecting potential problem clients before representation will enhance that success by eliminating fee-collection difficulties and possible malpractice claims.

Ed Poll is a nationally recognized coach, law firm management consultant, and author who has coached and consulted with lawyers and law firms in strategic planning, profitability analysis, and practice development for over twenty years. Ed has practiced law on all sides of the table and he now helps attorneys and law firms increase their profitability and peace of mind. He writes a syndicated legal column, Coach’s Corner, where this post originally appeared on January 23, 2012.

Hilarious Ethics Revue Homestudy: Pirates of the COBAR – Search for the Ethics Pearl

Some of the most effective and entertaining ethics lessons of the year were brought to life in a dazzling three-night run on the stage of Lannie’s Clocktower Cabaret in November.  The CBA-CLE 2011 Ethics Revue is an incredible CLE program produced and performed by a talented group of lawyers and judges from the Law Club.  The production weaves dancing, singing, music, and ethics lessons into one irreverent musical satire.

The theme this year was Pirates of the COBAR: Search for the Ethics Pearl, with Greg Cairns as Captain and Patricia Madsen as First Mate and hosted by Phil James, chair of the CBA Ethics Committee.  Moderated by the Honorable Claude Appel, the Ethics Committee Panel brought wisdom and gravitas with insightful ethics lessons from attorneys Michael Berger and Marcy Glenn, and the Honorable Ray Satter.  Director Barbara Laff ably guided the production that featured clever legal-themed twists on the lyrics of familiar songs including: “Mister Adjuster” (“Officer Krupke”), “Litigation, A Lawyer’s Life for Me” (“A Pirate’s Life for Me”), and “Tweet It” (“Beat It”).

Watch the trailer below to get a taste of the “must see” musical production of the year.  And, you can also get the whole program for 3 ethics CLE credits! Click here for more information.

Ethics Revue Pirates of the Cobar Trailer from Colorado Bar Association CLE on Vimeo.

The Law Club was founded nearly 100 years ago by a group of young lawyers, as a way to meet and discuss legal topics.  The club evolved over the years and started staging elaborate skits and productions featuring distinguished judges, as well as founders and senior partners of some of Colorado’s most prestigious law firms. Today’s Law Club puts their talents to good use performing at various law functions throughout the year.

We look forward to seeing what antics the Law Club gets into for the 2012 Revue!

Candid Microphone: Surreptitious Recording and Legal Ethics

We’ve all seen TV shows and movies where a secretly recorded conversation exposed some villainy—a love affair, confessions to embezzlement, perhaps an admission that testimony was fraudulent. On some of these shows, it might have been an attorney secretly recording the conversation. If the conversation was recorded by an attorney in Colorado, that attorney could face sanctions for surreptitious recording.

The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee adopted Formal Opinion 112 on July 19, 2003. The opinion asserts that it is generally improper for an attorney to secretly record a conversation, even if the recording is allowable under state law, because the conduct necessarily involves an element of deceit or trickery. In addition to Opinion 112, there are Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to surreptitious recording. Colo. RPC 8.4(c) bans conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Is it possible to secretly record a conversation without violating Rule 8.4(c)?

Opinion 112 states two exceptions to the general prohibition on surreptitious recording. First, it makes an exception for criminal law, where “surreptitious recordings . . . have long been commonplace.” Next, and most controversially, an exception is provided for conduct that occurs strictly in the lawyer’s personal life.

Perhaps an attorney suspects spousal infidelity, and wishes to record a conversation that may implicate that spouse in an extramarital tryst. Perhaps that secretly recorded conversation will be used in the attorney’s divorce proceeding. Perhaps that attorney is self-represented. Would the recording then become fodder for a disciplinary proceeding, since the recording was used in the practice of law?

These questions are difficult to answer with certainty, but case law points to a conclusion on the permissibility of surreptitious recording in a lawyer’s personal life. That case law will be discussed by Jack Tanner and Jerry Pratt on December 20, 2011, in their one-hour lunch time CLE program, “Candid Microphone: Surreptitious Recording and Legal Ethics.” Registration information below.

CLE Program: You’re On Candid Microphone! Surreptitious Recording and Legal Ethics

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, December 20. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Guardians ad Litem and the Attorney-Client Privilege: The Aftermath of the Gabriesheski Decision

On October 24, 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in People v. Gabriesheski. The Court held that because a child in a dependency and neglect proceeding is not the client of a court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL), the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality do not strictly apply. In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the role of the GAL is to represent the interests of the child, not the child himself or herself. The full case summary can be read below.

What will this mean for guardians ad litem and the children whose interests they represent? The decision raises many questions for family and juvenile law practitioners, including how to handle the ethical challenges of the case moving forward. Attorneys Sheri Danz and Linda Weinerman from the Office of the Child’s Representative, amicus curiae in Gabriesheski, will discuss the far-reaching ramifications of this important decision, issued only last week. This CLE program will be held on Monday, November 7, and will provide 1 General CLE credit and 1 Ethics credit.

Don’t miss this excellent opportunity to stay on the cutting edge of family and juvenile law developments in Colorado and learn how this very recent Colorado Supreme Court decision will affect your practice. Registration information is provided below.

People v. Gabriesheski

Dependency and Neglect Proceeding—Attorney–Client Privilege—Confidentiality of Communications—Guardian ad Litem—Social Worker—Witnesses.

The People sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming two in limine evidentiary rulings of the district court in a prosecution for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust in People v. Gabriesheski, 205 P.3d 441 (Colo. App. 2008). Following the district court’s exclusion of testimony concerning the recantation of the defendant’s step­daughter, the alleged child-sexual-assault victim, the prosecutor conceded her inability to go forward, and the case was dismissed. The court of appeals concluded that section 16- 12-102(1), C.R.S. (2010), gave it jurisdiction to entertain the People’s appeal, but it affirmed both of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

With regard to the exclusion of testimony by the guardian ad litem appointed in a parallel dependency and neglect proceeding, the court of appeals held that the child’s communications with the guardian fell within the attorney-client privilege, as set out at section 13-90-107(1)(b), C.R.S. (2010). With regard to the exclusion of testimony by a social worker also involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, the court found her to be both a professional who could not be examined in a criminal case without the consent of the parent-respondent, as dictated by section 19-3-207, C.R.S. (2010), and a licensed professional who could not be examined without the consent of her client, according to section 13-90-107(1)(g), C.R.S. (2010).

The Colorado Supreme Court affirms in part and reverses in part, holding that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction to entertain the People’s appeal, but disapproved of its conclusions with regard to both of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The supreme court finds that because a child who is the subject of a dependency and neglect proceeding is not the client of a court-appointed guardian ad litem, neither the statutory attorney-client privilege nor ethical rules governing an attorney’s obligations of confidentiality to a client strictly apply to communications by the child. Further, the supreme court finds that because the trial court apparently understood section 19-3-207 to bar the examination of the social worker in the defendant’s criminal case as long as she qualified as a professional involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, it failed to make sufficient findings to satisfy the additional statutory requirement that the statements at issue be ones made in compliance with court treatment orders, or to demonstrate the applicability of section 13-90-107, which is limited by its own terms to communications made by a client in the course of professional employment or psychotherapy.

CLE Program: Guardians Ad Litem and the Attorney-Client Privilege – The Aftermath of the Gabriesheski Decision

This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, November 7. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

New Ethics Opinion: Candor to the Tribunal and Remedial Measures in Civil Proceedings

In case you missed it last month, CBA-CLE held a program entitled Lawyers’ Duty of Candor to the Tribunal and Remedial Measures in Civil Actions and Proceedings on September 20, 2011. The program addressed the prohibition against offering false evidence, the duty to take remedial measures, and the duty to correct false statements by the lawyer set forth in Rule 3.3 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The program also looked at the knowledge and materiality elements of the Rules, the duration of the lawyer’s duties under the Rule, and the steps that the lawyer must take when confronted with this problem of material false evidence.

Overall, the program was a great way for lawyers to make sure they are in compliance with the ethical rules and to learn how to face these tough ethical dilemmas that are bound to arise at some point in your practice.

And, the program couldn’t have been more timely. After it concluded, the the CBA Ethics Committee released its final, edited version of Formal Opinion 123, “Candor to the Tribunal and Remedial Measures in Civil Proceedings.” It will be published in the December 2011 issue of The Colorado Lawyer, but you can read it here now first. The opinion provides a detailed analysis of the issues, followed by four illustrations designed to provide more practical guidance to lawyers facing these situations.

The homestudy covering these issues is now available as well, in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Formal Opinion 123 – Candor to the Tribunal and Remedial Measures in Civil Proceedings

Getting Paid: Using Credit Cards at Your Solo or Small Firm

Setting up and managing a credit card system at your firm is not as simple as it sounds. This week, I presented a one-hour program at CBA-CLE about everything you need to know to get started, from setting up the machine, managing acceptance of your clients’ cards, and getting paid, to the myriad of ethical implications involved when you accept credit cards in your practice. The program also looked at the fees and costs associated with using credit cards, how you should document the transactions, and how to contact merchant companies.

I invite you to check out the credit card information sheets that I use in my practice. They are provided below, and hopefully you will find them helpful in getting your own credit card system in place. And, in case you missed the presentation, you can also view my Five-Minute Mentor video below or you can access the homestudies here.

Solo/Small Firm Credit Card Documentation

Brian Popp has been in solo law practice since 2005. His practice is litigation based, and includes family law, real estate, collections, civil litigation, estate planning, and criminal defense. Brian is a former chair of the Denver Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, a former chair of the Solo Small Firm Section of the Colorado Bar Association, and was a member of the COBALT steering committee for its inaugural year in 2007.

Division of Real Estate Proposes New Rule Regarding Broker Competency

The DORA Division of Real Estate has proposed a new rule to regulate and enforce real estate broker competency. Real estate brokers are required to perform the terms of their real estate transaction agreements with clients, but they also must exercise reasonable skill and care and have a duty to promote the interests of their clients “with the utmost good faith, loyalty, and fidelity.” It is a violation of the real estate license law if a licensee demonstrates unworthiness or incompetency to act as a real estate broker by conducting business in such a manner as to endanger the interest of the public.

The purpose of this rule is to ensure that licensed real estate brokers do not agree to perform brokerage activities in a transaction where they lack the necessary training, experience, or education to fulfill the terms of the brokerage practice agreement, unless the licensed broker is assisted by another licensed real estate broker possessing the necessary competency.

The new rule, E-47 Competency, is also accompanied by an enforcement provision.

A hearing on the new rule will be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 1560 Broadway, Suite 1250-C, Denver, Colorado 80202, beginning at 9:00 am.

Full text of the proposed rule can be found here. Further information about the rule and hearing can be found here.