January 18, 2019

Colorado Supreme Court: Unnecessary Presence of Parents at Initial Consultation Voids Attorney-Client Privilege

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Fox v. Alfini on Monday, December 3, 2018.

In this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, the court reviews the district court’s order compelling production of a recording of the Petitioner’s initial consultation with her attorney. The district court determined that the recording was not subject to the attorney-client privilege because her parents were present during the consultation and their presence was not required to make the consultation possible. Further, the district court refused to consider several new arguments that the Petitioner raised in a motion for reconsideration.
The supreme court issued a rule to show cause and now concludes that the presence of a third party during an attorney-client communication will ordinarily destroy the attorney-client privilege unless the third party’s presence was reasonably necessary to the consultation or another exception applies. Here, because the record supports the district court’s finding that the Petitioner had not shown that her parents’ presence was reasonably necessary to facilitate the communication with counsel, the court perceives no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling that the recording at issue was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The court further concludes that, under settled law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the new arguments that the Petitioner raised in her motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the court discharges the rule to show cause.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Language in Fee Agreement Insufficient to Terminate Counsel’s Representation

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Lancaster on Thursday, November 29, 2018.

Criminal ProcedureConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentNotice of AppealIneffective Assistance of CounselCrim. P. 44(e)Termination of Representation.

Newell represented Lancaster at a criminal trial. The fee agreement between Newell and Lancaster included a provision that representation terminated at the conclusion of trial. A jury found Lancaster guilty on six of seven counts and he was sentenced in 2007. Following trial, Newell informed Lancaster that he would not represent him on appeal, but Newell did not withdraw from the representation. Thereafter, Lancaster did not timely file a notice of appeal. In 2010, Lancaster filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion alleging that Newell had been constitutionally ineffective by failing to file a notice of appeal. The motion was denied after a hearing.

On appeal, Lancaster contended that Newell was constitutionally ineffective in failing to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. Trial counsel’s representation of a criminal defendant terminates only as provided under Crim. P. 44(e), notwithstanding the fee agreement; therefore, trial counsel’s duty to perfect the defendant’s appeal is not discharged until the representation terminates pursuant to Crim. P. 44(e). Here, Newell’s failure to either file a notice of appeal on Lancaster’s behalf or withdraw pursuant to Crim. P. 44(d) and secure the appointment of the public defender to represent Lancaster on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because the ineffective assistance of trial counsel deprived Lancaster of his right to direct appeal of his conviction, he is entitled to pursue a direct appeal out of time pursuant to C.A.R. 4(b).

The order was reversed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Rule Change 2018(16) Adopted, Amending C.R.C.P. 252.10

On Thursday, October 4, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court issued Rule Change 2018(16), amending Rule 252.10, “Eligible Claims,” of the Colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding Attorney Discipline and Disability Proceedings, Colorado Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection, and Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and Judicial Education.

The changes to Rule 252.10 affect subparagraphs (a), (e), and (f), and reflect circumstances in which claims may be accepted and paid by the Board, including accepting claims in circumstances in which the loss is caused by the death or disability of the attorney and paying claims when client funds are no longer in the attorney’s trust account.

For a redline and clean version of Rule Change 2018(16), click here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s adopted and proposed rule changes, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Strict Privity Rule Bars Claims Against Attorneys by Non-Clients

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bewley v. Semler on Monday, September 24, 2018.

Strict Privity—Standing—Pleading.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether the strict privity rule bars claims against attorneys by non-clients absent a showing of fraud, malicious conduct, or negligent misrepresentation. The court held that, absent any wrongdoing, the strict privity rule does bar claims against attorneys by non-clients because holding otherwise may force attorneys to place non-clients’ interests ahead of clients’ interests. Here, because Semler did not allege any fraud, malicious conduct, or negligent misrepresentation, he lacked standing to assert a breach-of-contract claim.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Rule Changes Adopt Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program, Amend Public Access and Water Court Rules

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued three new rule changes that have recently been released by the Colorado State Judicial Branch.

Rule Change 2018(08) amends Rules 11, 12, and 13 of the Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions. Rule 11 was amended by the addition of a comment to specify that January 1, 2018, changes to the rule require expert witness disclosures to be made earlier than were previously required. Rule 12, “Procedure Regarding Decennial Abandonment Lists,” is new and sets forth specifications for publication and protest of decennial abandonment lists. Rule 13 was unchanged except to be renumbered; formerly, it was Rule 12.

Rule Change 2018(09) amends Rule 2 of Chapter 38 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, “Public Access to Information and Records.” Rule 2, “Public Access to Administrative Records of the Judicial Branch,” had minor amendments in sections 1 and 2. Section 3 of the rule dealing with exceptions and limitations on access to records had several amendments. The changes to Section 4 were relatively minor, and Section 5 was unchanged.

Rule Change 2018(10) adds Rule 256, “The Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program,” to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 256 establishes the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program and sets forth guidelines and definitions for compliance with the program. The rule specifies that lawyers who utilize the program will be subject to confidentiality and immunity.

For a complete list of the Colorado Supreme Court’s adopted and proposed rule changes, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Attorney Violated Colo. RPC 1.8(a)(3) by Not Obtaining Informed Consent for Business Transaction

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of James C. Wollrab on Monday, June 25, 2018.

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct—Attorney Discipline—Colo. RPC 1.8—Colo. RPC 4.2.

In this attorney discipline proceeding, the supreme court was confronted with questions as to what Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8 and 4.2 require of an attorney who enters into a business relationship with his client. The court concluded that the attorney in this case violated Rule 1.8(a)(1) when he signed a lease with his client’s company without complying with any of Rule 1.8(a)’s prophylactic requirements. The attorney also violated Rule 1.8(a)(3) when he entered into an option agreement with his client without obtaining his client’s informed, written consent to his role in the deal. However, because the attorney had the implied consent of his client’s independent counsel for the purposes of the option agreement, he did not violate Rule 1.8(a)(1) or (2) or Rule 4.2 in that transaction. The court remanded the case to the hearing board for determination of the appropriate sanction in light of its conclusions.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Mandatory Continuing Legal and Judicial Education Age Requirements Changing July 1, 2018

On March 15, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted changes to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure affecting mandatory continuing legal and judicial education. One of the changes that will have the broadest application is a change to the age requirements for mandatory continuing legal and  judicial education.

The current rules specify that attorneys who attain the age of 65 years are no longer required to obtain or track CLE credits. The rule change extends that age to 72 years, and attorneys who are currently exempt from tracking CLE credits due to their age will once again be required to comply with CLE reporting requirements until they attain 72 years of age.

The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel released a helpful guide on how to proceed if you are between the ages of 65 and 72 years:

How will this work?

If you are currently exempt from mandatory CLE based on your age and are not yet 72 years old, you will again become subject to the requirements and your compliance period begins this year and ends December 31, 2021. For those of you who will be turning 65 this year or in 2019 and have not yet become exempt, your compliance period will automatically be extended to December 31, 2021. Once you turn age 72, you will again become exempt from the CLE requirements.

What happens if you turn age 72 before December 31, 2021?

You will become exempt during your first re-entry compliance period, and therefore it is up to you to what extent you wish to enter your CLE activities on your official transcript. Additionally, pursuant to the new rule, even once you become exempt, you will continue to be able to enter your CLE activities on your official transcript. This will allow you to continue to track your CLE, even though not required, for your own use. The Office of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education will be making changes to your CLE record over the next few months and will be ready for the July 1, 2018 effective date, so that you may begin entering your CLE credits online at that time.

CBA-CLE Classic Pass

CBA-CLE has developed a “Classic Pass” geared exclusively toward attorneys who were previously exempt from CLE reporting requirements. The Classic Pass is a subscription service that will allow attorneys to fulfill their CLE requirements for a reasonable price. For more information about the Classic Pass or to order your subscription, please contact Mary Dilworth at mdilworth@cobar.org.

Colorado Supreme Court: Formerly Secretary of State Properly Subject to Jurisdiction of Independent Ethics Commission

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gessler v. Smith on Monday, June 4, 2018.

Amendment 41—Independent Ethics Commission—Jurisdiction.

The supreme court considered whether Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission (the IEC) had jurisdiction pursuant to article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution to hear a complaint based on allegations that then-Secretary of State Scott Gessler (the Secretary) breached the public trust by using money from his statutorily provided discretionary fund for partisan and personal purposes. The IEC investigated the complaint, held an evidentiary hearing, and determined that the Secretary’s conduct breached the public trust. The Secretary sought judicial review of the IEC’s ruling, arguing that the IEC lacked jurisdiction over the case, the relevant jurisdictional language must be narrowly construed to avoid unconstitutional vagueness, and the IEC violated his procedural due process rights. Both the district court and the court of appeals affirmed the IEC’s ruling.

The court held that relevant jurisdictional language in Colo. Const. art. XXIX, § 5 authorizes the IEC to hear complaints involving ethical standards of conduct relating to activities that could allow covered individuals, including elected officials, to improperly benefit financially from their public employment. The court further held that C.R.S. § 24-18-103 is one such ethical standard of conduct. This provision establishes that the holding of public office or employment is a public trust, and that a public official “shall carry out his duties for the benefit of the people of the state.” Because the allegations against the Secretary clearly implicated this standard, the court concluded that the complaint fell within the IEC’s jurisdiction and rejected the Secretary’s jurisdictional and vagueness challenges. Additionally, the court rejected the Secretary’s procedural due process claim because he failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged violation.

The court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Special Prosecutor Unnecessary for Post-Trial Proceeding

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Ehrnstein on Monday, May 21, 2018.

Special Prosecutors—Colo. RPC 3.7—Post-Trial Proceedings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court reviewed the trial court’s order appointing a special prosecutor for the purpose of litigating defendant’s post-trial motion for a new trial. In his motion, defendant alleged that the prosecution had improperly instructed a witness to evade a defense subpoena. The trial court concluded that the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct compelled it to appoint a special prosecutor for the purposes of the hearing on this motion because, subject to exceptions not pertinent here, Colo. RPC 3.7 prohibits an attorney from acting as both an advocate and a witness during the same proceeding.

The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special prosecutor because that court misapplied the law when it found that Colo. RPC 3.7 required the appointment of a special prosecutor in the circumstances present here. Specifically, the rule serves to prevent prejudice that arises from jury confusion in cases in which an attorney serves as both counsel and witness. Because this proceeding arose in the context of a post-trial motion, that concern is not implicated.

The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded this case for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Jessica Yates Appointed as New Regulation Counsel in Light of Jim Coyle’s Retirement

On Monday, April 30, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its appointment of Jessica Yates as Regulation Counsel at the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. Yates will replace current Regulation Counsel Jim Coyle, who is retiring on June 30, 2018. Jim has been with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel for 28 years, including five years as Regulation Counsel.

Yates is currently a partner at Snell & Wilmer, LLP, where she concentrates her practice in litigation and appeals in both federal and state courts, as well as business issues and negotiations. She has experience in commercial disputes, consumer lending litigation for institutional clients, condemnation/eminent domain, contract negotiations, government procurement and private contract disputes, environmental law, real estate and construction litigation, special districts/local government and insurance coverage disputes. She is also head of Snell & Wilmer’s Ethics Committee, in which capacity she is responsible for ethics compliance and providing guidance to attorneys on matters involving ethics and professional responsibility. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and her law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. She also received an M.A. degree at the University of York in England.

For more information about the appointment, click here.

Prison for Breach of Duties of Candor?!

By Karen A. Hammer, Esq., LL.M.
Hammer-Law[1]

The legal world is complicated. Our law practices vary greatly, as do our personalities and political interests.

But many lawyers can agree on one goal — avoid prison.

Alex Van Der Zwaan Gets Thirty Days

Dutch solicitor Alex R. van der Zwaan (English Solicitors Regulation Authority I.D. 433369) is the first person sentenced in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation, receiving thirty days of incarceration. To be clear, Mr. van der Zwaan has not, at least as far as has been publicly disclosed, been disciplined by the Solicitors Regulation Authority that controls his license. See http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/7115/alex-rolf-van-der-zwaan.

The sentencing memorandum from the United States case brought against Mr. van der Zwaan (United States v. van der Zwaan, 1:18-cr-00031-ABJ (D. D.C. 2018)) is an interesting and quick read. If you’re curious, look here: https://bit.ly/2Hb5lQk. (Mr. van der Zwaan’s proposed Sentencing Memorandum can be found here: https://bit.ly/2q4recI.)

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The prosecution uses language that is similar to that used in disciplinary sanction proceedings, referring to “aggravating” and “mitigating” factors. If you’re not yet familiar with the factors that are used to determine the proper levels of discipline for lawyers’ violations of rules of professional conduct, you may be interested in the ABA Standards for Imposing Sanctions (https://bit.ly/2jCsuTR). These Standards describe aggravating and mitigating factors.

One interesting “aggravating” factor in Mr. van der Zwaan’s sentence to a 30-day term was that the “professional bar rightly expected candor” from him. Sentencing Memo at 5. This is a reminder of a frequently overlooked part of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that allows these Rules to be used as standards that can be applied outside of the context of attorney discipline. See, e.g., Colo. RPC Scope [20] (“a lawyer’s violation of a Rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct”), available at http://www.cobar.org/For-Members/Opinions-Rules-Statutes/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Preamble-and-Scope.

But Still, Prison for the Duty of Candor?

Some might ask how Special Counsel Mueller could reasonably expect Mr. van der Zwaan to have a duty of candor during the investigation that was being conducted. The formal charge made against Mr. van der Zwaan was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) — making a false statement in an investigation within the jurisdiction of the executive branch. Van der Zwaan Doc. 1 (Feb. 16, 2018) at 1.

Section 1001 explicitly excludes parties and their counsel from criminal prosecution thereunder. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b). He was a solicitor in the London office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP. So, how did Mr. van der Zwaan get charged with a violation of § 1001?

Mr. van der Zwaan was neither a party nor counsel to a party when he made his false statements to the Special Counsel’s Office. Mr. van der Zwaan’s false statements resulted in his becoming a party to a criminal case. See https://bit.ly/2JjYDrT. He admitted that he received warning that “intentional false statements” by him during the investigation could lead to criminal charges. Van der Zwaan Doc. 9, ¶ 3 at 2, https://bit.ly/2GCETxM.

To be clear, the Sentencing Memorandum did not refer to any of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which may not (or may) apply to Mr. van der Zwaan absent other facts not referred to here. Mr. van der Zwaan is licensed to practice in England, and the Sentencing Memorandum does not directly state whether the England’s Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct applies to false statements he made while being questioned in the District of Columbia by the Special Counsel’s Office.

But this statement that the “bar” may expect “candor” from lawyers is an example of an important part of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that impose certain standards on lawyers even when they are not practicing law. See, e.g., Colo. RPC 8.4 (imposing a variety of standards, including the prohibition of dishonest conduct and of conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), available at http://www.cobar.org/For-Members/Opinions-Rules-Statutes/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Rule-84-Misconduct.

If you haven’t reviewed Rule 8.4 in a while, Mr. van der Zwaan’s recent sentence of incarceration may pique your curiosity enough to take a look.  Our memory of the Rules and the fairly specific standards of conduct they impose on us as lawyers fades over time, yet our obligations do not.

Learn from Others

I’m a big believer in learning from the mistakes of others. Unfortunately for Mr. van der Zwaan, his misconduct provided the current lesson that inspired me to renew my own understanding of the duties of candor and how they apply in situations that some lawyers might not anticipate.

Some lawyers incorrectly continue to believe that their only duties are to their clients.

Be proactive — familiarize yourself with the rules and standards Mr. van der Zwaan has teed up for us all.


[1] A version of this article was originally published in Law Week Colorado on April 9, 2018, primarily omitting citations and hyperlinks, available at http://lawweekcolorado.com/2018/04/prison-breach-duties-candor/.

 

Proactively Manage the Financial Risks of Ethics Violations

By Karen A. Hammer, Esq., LL.M.[1]

Many business people say, “if you can’t work harder, then work smarter.” They focus on increasing profitability by either increasing revenue (while holding down costs) or decreasing costs (even when revenues are level). Even if you cannot increase your gross revenue, you can most likely decrease costs by proactively managing foreseeable risks.

OARC’s Lawyer Self-Assessment Program provides tools to help lawyers work smarter by anticipating and managing risk.

Why I’m a Fan of Self-assessment

When fielding calls for the Colorado Bar Association’s Ethics Hotline, I talk to some lawyers who don’t know how to evaluate and manage ethics risks. Attendees at ethics CLE I teach sometimes incorrectly assume ethics rules are merely “aspirational.” Those lawyers who treat ethics rules as “aspirational” still face ethics risks, but are blind to opportunities to manage those risks.

These misunderstandings exist among all experience levels and across practice areas.

That’s why I enthusiastically answered Attorney Regulation Counsel Jim Coyle’s request to join a Supreme Court subcommittee on proactively managing ethics risks. In late October 2017, Colorado’s OARC rolled out the first-in-the-nation ethics self-assessment program for lawyers to voluntarily and confidentially evaluate risks.

Understanding Risk

Transactional lawyers often help clients manage risk – parties voluntarily apportion certain risks contractually. Litigators routinely help their clients influence who bears the cost when the risk of harm has “blossomed” into actual or perceived damage to private or public interests protected by law.

Lawyers traditionally consider themselves the ones who give advice, but maybe we could learn from the impact on our clients – and on our colleagues – of inadequate risk management.

What is Risk Management?

Some learned as youngsters to look both ways before crossing the street so that we don’t walk into oncoming traffic. That may have been our first risk management lesson.

OARC Self-Assessment Program

The self-assessment tool identifies ten select areas where lawyers can manage the risks of the substantive and practical aspects of the business of law:

  1. Developing competent practices
  2. Communicating in an effective, timely, professional manner
  3. Ensuring the confidentiality requirements are met
  4. Avoiding conflicts of interest
  5. File management, security, and retention
  6. Managing the law firm/legal entity and staff appropriately
  7. Charging appropriate fees and making appropriate disbursements
  8. Ensuring that reliable trust account practices are in use
  9. Access to justice and client development
  10. Wellness and inclusivity

Each module includes thought-provoking questions and resources to help us work smarter. After completion of each online module, the lawyer can receive an analytical report.

Confidentiality

OARC actively designed the tool so that lawyers can honestly participate in self-assessments without revealing to others weak spots in their practice or ethics compliance. More information is available online.

Liability Insurance is Not the Only Risk Management Tool

Violations of the external standards imposed on us as lawyers and as civilians can be expensive and cause reputational damage. To manage that risk, many lawyers purchase liability insurance.

If you have professional liability coverage, check your policy to determine the size of your deductible for your defense. Now make a list of the things you could spend your deductible amount on that would be more rewarding, interesting, or satisfying than defending against risks that could have been proactively managed and/or mitigated.

Read your policy thoroughly to determine other essential terms. For example, your policy may not cover illegal acts.

Lawyers should know better than anyone how much time goes into defense against claims – that time could be used for more productive or enjoyable purposes. Ultimately, wouldn’t you rather make proactive decisions about where you spend your time and money?

One Example

Here’s a specific self-assessment example from the Competent Practice Working Group (Cori Peterson (Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge), David Wollins (David H. Wollins, P.C.) and me).

Many competence questions help lawyers identify weaknesses and strengths in our own substantive areas of practice. But the self-assessment also prompts lawyers to identify circumstances we might not otherwise anticipate that could undermine competence.

Competence Objective 1 is “Ensure you have the legal knowledge and education to handle all new matters.” That seems straightforward at first blush.

Then the tool provides a series of best practices for you to consider, including Best Practice 1.3: “Assess whether you are familiar with the factual context and subject matter of cases you take” (emphasis added).

After each objective, the online tool refers to some relevant Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. For competence Objective 1, the tool also cites to “In re Shipley, 135 S. Ct. 1589-90 (2015) (a lawyer cannot delegate the duty of competence to a client).”

Going deeper, Objective 3 assesses whether you have the necessary resources to competently handle matters. Best Practice 3.5 prompts you to “Ensure your fees are adequate to support developing both the factual bases and the legal aspects of the matters you undertake.” You are then referred to “C.R.C.P. 11 (‘the signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, is well-grounded in fact . . . .’).”

Rule 11 violations create financial risks; but, even without Rule 11 sanctions, ethics rules make false Rule 11 certifications potential discipline risks. Similarly, transactional lawyers also face external standards of care, such as securities laws governing legal opinions lawyers provide to investors and financial rating agencies to evaluate a potential investment. Insufficient due diligence creates direct financial risk under securities laws, and indirect financial risks from the professional disciplinary process.

OARC investigations can be triggered by request. Investigations can be uncomfortable, time-consuming, and potentially expensive, regardless of whether discipline follows.

Unlikely? Remember Boulder’s 1,000-year rain? In retrospect, well-maintained sump pumps weren’t “aspirational.”

Your Annual Check-up

OARC’s self-assessment is like your annual physical to gauge your medical condition or the financial snapshot your annual taxes provide. Why not click on the self-assessment link while renewing your annual attorney registration? http://coloradosupremecourt.com/AboutUs/LawyerSelfAssessmentProgram.asp

Upcoming CLE

On March 8, 2018, the Boulder County Bar Association will host its first CLE on OARC’s Lawyer Self-Assessment Program, “Sharpen Up: The Lawyer Self-Assessment.” For more information, click here.[2]

CBA-CLE hosted a program on the OARC’s Proactive Management-Based Program in December, “Proactive Practices: Maintaining Competence and Wellness in the Practice of Law.” To order the homestudy, click here: Video OnDemandMP3 Audio Download.


[1] Thanks to fellow Proactive Management-Based Program subcommittee member, Barbara K. Brown, Ph.D., for her insightful comments on this article.

[2] This article was updated on February 21, 2018 from the version initially published in the Boulder County Bar Association February e-newsletter to reflect more detailed information on the March 8, 2018 CLE.

 

Karen Hammer is the principal of Hammer-Law. Hammer is a member of the Boulder County Bar Association. She can be reached at hammer@hammer-law.comHammer has handled over two billion dollars of complex financial transactions involving businesses, government agencies, and quasi-governmental entities. She also does related types of litigation. A member of the CBA’s Professionalism Coordinating Council, Hammer is also co-Secretary of the CBA’s Ethics Committee. Hammer is a Hearing Panel board member for attorney discipline cases. She was Chair of the D.C. Bar’s Real Estate, Housing, and Land Use Section and an appointee to the White House and Congressional Commission on Character Building in Education.