Meeting Minutes, Philadelphia September 2000 - Center for Professional Responsibility

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
COMMISSION ON EVALUATION OF THE RULES
OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

MINUTES

Friday, September 15 - Sunday, September 17, 2000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Commission Members Present :
E. Norman Veasey, Chair
Lawrence J. Fox
Albert C. Harvey
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr.
Patrick E. Higginbotham
W. Loeber Landau
Margaret C. Love
Susan R. Martyn
David T. McLaughlin
Richard E. Mulroy
Lucian T. Pera
Henry Ramsey, Jr.

Liaison:
Seth Rosner, Center for Professional Responsibility

Guests:
Donald Hilliker, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
Steven C. Krane, New York State Bar
Robert MacCrate, New York State Bar
Herbert Wander, Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice

Reporters:
Nancy J. Moore
Carl A. Pierce

Staff:
Jeanne P. Gray
Charlotte K. Stretch
Susan M. Campbell

Observers:
See list of observers following minutes.

The Commission meeting was held on Friday, September 15, and Saturday, September 16, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Sunday, September 17, from 8 to 10 a.m. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

I. Report

Al Harvey reported that he, Chief Justice Veasey and Lucian Pera will meet with Karen Mathis, Chair of the House of Delegates, and ABA Policy Administration staff to discuss the format of the Commission's report and the process of presenting it to the House.

Mr. Harvey circulated a draft plan for educating the Board of Governors, House of Delegates, bar associations and ABA entities about the report. He asked the members to be prepared to contact the entities assigned to them to find out what concerns those entities may have.

ABA President Martha Barnett joined the Commission by telephone to discuss presentation of the report. She suggested that the Commission plan to make presentations to the Board of Governors in October, April and June. She noted that regional bar leaders will be present at these meetings. She advised the Commission of the importance of advance planning. She offered her assistance and encouraged the Commission to use the state delegates as a resource.

II. Rule 1.7

It was moved and seconded to approve the Reporter's recommendation to not change the requirement that the consent be confirmed in writing. Some members had asked the Reporter to draft something short of a required writing. The Reporter stated that she felt this requirement was one of the most significant proposals of the Commission. She added that the National Organization of Bar Counsel would prefer that the writing be signed by the client in order to make the requirement enforceable but that NOBC prefers the current proposal to any kind of burden-shifting provision.

A member argued that this will be a difficult battle in the House and the Commission should be prepared to compromise. Several members felt that the Commission should put forward the best rule and worry about compromise later. The motion passed 8 to 0.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed sentence at the end of Comment [9] that explains that representation of multiple parties in mediation would be covered under paragraph (b)(1) rather than paragraph (b)(3). The motion passed 7 to 3.

The Commission approved the reorganization of the Comments, noting that the Comments are now much clearer. A member noted that the changes to Rule 1.7 are very helpful and are an exception to the general proposition that changes should not be made if there is no change in substance. A member suggested that the Reporter's Explanation note that no substantive changes (other than the writing) were intended and also explain why the nonsubstantive changes were made (e.g., clarity, educational function).

A motion was made and seconded to approve the Reporter's suggested redraft of Comment [13]. The Reporter read a suggested redraft by one of the observers. A member felt that prospective waivers should only be permitted for a particular type of conflict. He asked if it was appropriate to have a separate rule for "sophisticated" users of legal services.

A member noted that, in determining whether consent was informed, courts look at circumstances, including scope. He suggested that the sentence on sophisticated users could be deleted. Another member felt the Comment serves an educational purpose. A motion was made and seconded to amend the main motion to approve Comment [13]. The amendment would delete the second to last sentence relating to sophisticated users. The motion to amend was defeated 4 to 5. The main motion passed 6 to 3. The Commission agreed that the term "experienced" should replace "sophisticated" in Comment [13] and in Comment [5] to Rule 1.0.

A member suggested that the cross-reference to Rule 1.10 in Comment [17a] should include the cautioning language in Rule 1.10. The Commission agreed with the suggestion and noted that it would not be duplicative of the last sentence in Comment [15a] since that comment refers only to one type of personal conflict. A member suggested that Comment [17a] be placed prior to Comment [15a].

The Commission agreed to add a Comment to negate the interpretation voiced to a Commission member that the deletion of the words "adversely affect the relationship with the client" meant that the standard as to when a firm had a conflict under Rule 1.7 had been tightened considerably. The Reporter pointed out that the commentator had misinterpreted the language, which is about conflict recognition not consentability.

A member asked the Reporter to consider adding examples to Comment [25].

The Reporter agreed to review the language suggestions made by a Commission member in a memo circulated before the meeting. Another member had the following language suggestions: the phrase "or independent judgment" in Comment [18] should be moved, the beginning of the second sentence of Comment [12] should be changed to "Whether the client's revocation ...," "mediator" should be used instead of "mediation" in line 33 of Comment [9].

An observer suggested that Comment [4a] be deleted because he felt that paragraph (a)(1) conflicts should be limited to litigation. The Reporter agreed. A Commission member stated that direct adversity does apply in transactional as well as litigation matters. Several members felt that characterizing the transactional matters described in Comment [4a] as "directly adverse" means that the other client always gets a veto power; characterizing them as "material limitation" conflicts would mean that each matter would be analyzed to determine if consent was required. A motion was made and seconded to approve Comment [4a] as drafted. The motion passed 6 to 2.

III. Rule 1.8

The Reporter noted the changes made in paragraph (f) in light of the Commission's decision at the last meeting to delete "or direction." The Reporter has added Comments [2] and [3] to Rule 5.4 to discuss the issue of direction. A member suggested that Comments [10] and [11] to Rule 1.8 refer to Rule 5.4. A suggestion was made to use current Comment [12] to Rule 1.8 in Rule 5.4.

A motion was made and seconded to delete Comment [3] to Rule 5.4 and the last two sentences of Comment [2] to Rule 5.4. A member pointed out that the states differ on whether insurance companies are treated as clients so it is impossible to write a rule that applies to both situations. The motion passed 10 to 1. The suggestion to include current Comment [12] to Rule 1.8 in Rule 5.4 was withdrawn.

The Commission decided not to require that consent be confirmed in writing in paragraph (f). If a conflict exists under Rule 1.7, the writing would be required.

IV. Rule 1.9

Rule 1.9 was approved as drafted.

V. Rule 1.10

A motion was made and seconded to change the scienter requirement back to "knows or reasonably should know." The Reporter noted that representatives of NOBC recently stated that a "knowingly" standard places a premium on ignorance. A member felt that "should have known" creates a strong incentive for disqualification motions. She added that if Rule 1.10 is changed to "reasonably should know," Rules 1.9(b), 1.11(b) and 1.12 would also have to be changed.

Another member felt that there has not been a problem and the current standard should not be changed. The Reporter pointed out that the change in scienter won't make a difference in disqualification. A member felt that the chage would put lawyers on notice of the current state of the law. The motion was defeated 3 to 9.

A motion was made and seconded to approve nonconsensual screening for lateral hires (proposed paragraphs (x) of Rule 1.10 and (y) of Rule 1.0). The motion passed 9 to 2.

A motion was made and seconded to permit screening only if the disqualified lawyer did not participate in the same litigation in which the new firm represents a party adverse to the former client. The motion passed 6 to 4.

A motion was made and seconded to amend the approved provision by deleting "litigation." The motion to amend failed 2 to 7.

A motion to reconsider the original "side-switching" motion was made and seconded. It passed. Some members argued that the approved language was too broad. The motion passed on re-vote 7 - 4.

A member suggested that the Comment to the definition of screening should point out that padlocks are no substitute for the integrity of the individual screened.

VI. Rule 1.11

The Reporter explained that the proposed draft takes into consideration the Commission's decision to clarify that Rule 1.9 applies to former government lawyers but Rule 1.11 has a different definition of matter. The Commission had also suggested using "personal and substantial participation" in Rule 1.11, while leaving "representation" in Rule 1.9. The Reporters suggest that since there is little if any difference between those formulations, the Rule 1.9 standard should apply in both situations.

An observer explained why he thought the Commission should make no changes to the current Rule.

A representative from the Department of Justice stated that the Department was satisfied with the proposed draft which is very similar to the rule in the District of Columbia.

The Reporter stated that the difference between the proposed draft and the current Rule is that the current Rule is ambiguous regarding its relationship with Rule 1.9. Several members agreed that the caselaw has been inconsistent regarding the application of Rule 1.11. A member who was on the Ethics Committee when it rendered an opinion that former government lawyers were not subject to Rule 1.9 indicated she now feels that the opinion was incorrect. Another member added that Rule 1.9 allows the government to consent. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the draft as proposed. The motion passed 7 to 1.

VII. Rule 1.12

The Reporter noted that she added "confirmed in writing" to paragraph (a). A motion was made and seconded to approve the draft as written. A motion to amend the motion by not giving mediators the same treatment as judges and arbitrators with regard to screening was not seconded. The motion to approve as written passed 8 to 1.

VIII. Rule 2.x

The Reporter indicated that she would like to restore Comments [2] and [3]. No motion was made to make these changes.

A member noted that Comment [3] of the Preamble refers to "negotiate a transaction" but the same language is not in Rule 2.x. The Commission suggested replacing "negotiate a transaction" with "resolve a matter or dispute" in the Preamble.

A member suggested deleting the word "substantial" in Comment [1].

A motion was made and seconded to adopt the Rule as drafted. The motion passed.

IX. Rule 1.0

The Commission agreed to make no change to the definition of "law firm" with regard to government lawyers. The Commission agreed not to change the term "law firm" to "law office."

A member made a suggestion to return the definition of "fraud" to "intent to deceive." Several members felt that such a change would improve the chances of the House approving the proposed changes to Rule 1.6(b). A motion was made and seconded to change the definition of "fraud" to "conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive." The motion passed 7 to 1.

The Commission agreed that the four Rules requiring a signature should state so specifically in the Rule.

A member suggested deleting the first "reasonably" in paragraph (e). The Commission agreed.

A motion was made and seconded not to change "denotes" to "means" throughout the Rule. The motion passed 7 to 1.

A motion was made to approve the proposed new Comment on "tribunal," including the bracketed language (with the brackets removed). The motion passed 5 to 0.

A member suggested referring to independent counsel in Comment [5] in the fifth sentence or possibly deleting the sentence altogether.

X. Rule 3.3

The Reporter stated that new Comment [6a] will replace Comment [12] to clarify the intent of the Rule. A motion was made and seconded to adopt this change. The motion passed 8 to 0.

The Commission disagreed with a suggestion to change the wording of paragraph (a)(2) in the absence of evidence that the meaning of the provision is unclear.

XI. Rule 1.1

A motion was made and seconded to delete the proposed additional language in Comment [2] relating to certified specialists. A member felt that the language implied an obligation on the part of a novice to associate with a certified specialist. Another noted that a lawyer does not need to be certified to be competent. The motion passed 10 to 0.

A motion was made a seconded to delete the proposed additional language in Comment [1]. The motion passed 6 to 3.

XII. Rule 1.3

Rule 1.3 was approved as drafted.

XIII. Rule 1.2

1. The Commission discussed a comment from a consumer organization that Rule 1.2(a) should say more clearly what client control means. A member noted that it is impossible to draft the Rule to account for all of the different types of clients. A member observed that the current draft is being misinterpreted to mean more power to the lawyer than under the current Rule, so it might be better to return to the original Model Rule language. The Reporter agreed and added that the changes to Rule 1.4 clarify the need to communicate/consult with the client which is in the original language of Rule 1.2. A member suggested that a reference to Rule 1.4 be added to the original language. A member added that the reference to implied authority should be added to the old Model Rule text as well as the cross-reference to Rule 1.4. The Commission asked the Reporters to draft language for review the next day. The Commission then approved the redraft proposed by the Reporters of paragraph (a) and Comments [1], [1a], and [2].

The Commission suggested that the current language "technical and legal tactical issues" in Comment [1] be changed to "technical, legal and tactical matters."

2. A motion was made and seconded to move Rule 1.2(b) to Comment as suggested by a consumer group. Several members felt that the paragraph is a useful guide to lawyers. The motion failed with 3 votes.

3. A motion to delete the proposed additional language in Rule 1.2(d) passed 7 to 1.

4. A motion to delete the last three sentences of the new language in Comment [10] passed.

In light of that decision, the Commission voted 8 to 0 to delete the reference to Rule 1.2(d) in the sixth sentence of Comment [3] in Rule 4.1 and to add "but only" before "to the extent necessary" in the last sentence of that Comment.

XIV. Rule 1.4

A member asked that the example at the end of [1b] be changed to something other than scheduling to emphasize that "status" means more than scheduling.

A member asked if the word "reasonably" was necessary in so many places in the rule text. A member responded that deletion of the word would create a strict liability standard. No change was suggested.

XV. Rule 1.5

The Commission agreed with the additional language in paragraph (a) regarding expenses. With respect to the new Comment [x], a motion was made and seconded to delete the second sentence of the proposed new language and delete the word "actual" in the last sentence. The motion passed 8 to 1. A member suggested that the Reporter's Explanation mention the Ethics Opinion on fees.

A member noted that the new language in paragraph (c) should be reworded to clarify that the client must pay whether or not the client is the prevailing party.

The Commission agreed with the proposed change in paragraph (e).

A motion was made to amend paragraph (e) to say that the fee can be no greater because of the fee sharing agreement. The motion was not seconded.

The Reporter will review the suggested language changes submitted by a commission member.

XVI. MDP

Chief Justice Veasey introduced several guests who were invited to attend the meeting to discuss what Ethics 2000 should do about MDP: Robert MacCrate; Steve Crane; Don Hilliker; and Herb Wander. Mr. MacCrate suggested that the Commission amend the Model Rules to acknowledge the principles and core values outlined in Resolution 10F recently passed by the House of Delegates. He provided several drafting changes in a memorandum circulated to the Commission prior to the meeting. Herb Wander, speaking as an individual and not as a member of the MDP Commission of which he was a member, suggested that no changes be made to Rules 5.7 and 5.8 without further study, which is currently being undertaken by the Ethics Committee. Don Hilliker, Chair of the Ethics Committee, advised that the Committee will be studying strategic alliances as it was requested to do. He noted that the Committee will clearly not have any results in time for the Commission's October Report.

The Commission decided that it would submit its October Report without any recommendations relating to MDP and would work with the Ethics Committee after its study is completed.

XVII. Rule 1.13

A motion to change "apparent" to "knows or reasonably should know" in paragraph (d) passed 6 to 2.

XVIII. Rule 1.14

The Commission approved the draft as submitted.

XIX. Rule 1.15

The Commission approved the draft as submitted.

XX. Rule 1.16

A motion was made and seconded to include a writing requirement in the Rule. Several members thought a writing here would be best practice but not a good rule. The motion failed 4 to 7.

XXI. Rule 1.17

Rule 1.17 was approved as drafted.

XXII. Rule 1.18

The Reporter noted that the Ethics Committee recommended the deletion of "reasonable steps" because it was too vague. A member stated he felt that the provision was the only justification for the Rule. He felt that without it there is no incentive to limit the amount of information received. A motion to delete the language was made and seconded. Several members noted that this provision was unenforceable. A member observed that the provision does state the law in disqualification motions. The vote on the motion was 5 - 5. The chair voted to delete. The Commission agreed to address the issue in the Comment.

XXIII. Rule 1.6

A member requested that the concept in the last sentence of Comment [8] be stated in paragraph {b)(2). The Reporter responded that paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) are different in terms of the type of disclosure necessary.

A member suggested changing Comment [7] to avoid the implication that the lawyer must take steps (other than disclosure) to prevent the client's action. A motion was made and seconded to so change Comment. The motion passed 6 to 2.

The Commission agreed with a suggestion to change "enables" to "permits" in the Comment.

The Commission did not agree with a suggestion to delete paragraph (b)(6).

The Commission did not agree with a suggestion to change the words "legal and correct" in Comment [2].

The Commission agreed with a suggestion to add "to the extent required by Rule 1.4" in Comment [12] following "the lawyer should".

A member suggested that Comment [12] should parallel Comment [13] in stating that a lawyer should assert all nonfrivolous claims. The Reporter stated the Comment [13] applies to the finite universe of court while Comment [12] is a huge field. He suggested that Comment [12] could alert lawyers to the possibility of contesting. The members agreed to help draft language.

XXIV. Rule 4.2

The Commission agreed that the second sentence of the new language in Comment [2] should be separated into two sentences with the reference to Rule 8.4 between them. A motion was made and seconded to delete the second half of the last sentence of the new language: ".. and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make." A member pointed out that Rule 4.2 is a prohibition applicable to lawyers, not clients. The motion was defeated by a vote of 2 to 9.

A motion was made and seconded to delete the third sentence of Comment [3]. A member commented that the second sentence makes the point without need for the third sentence. The motion passed 7 to 1.

The Commission approved the language "permissible under this Rule" at the end of Comment [3a].

The Commission approved Comment [4] as written.

The Commission did not approve a suggestion from the National Employment Lawyers Association to modify Comment [6]'s reference to a constituent whose actions in the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability.

XXV. Rules 2.1 and 2.3

Rules 2.1 and 2.3 were approved as drafted.

XXVI. Rule 3.8

The Commission reviewed the new language in Comment [7] explaining how Rule 3.8 applies to prosecutors. Several members felt that the language was helpful in acknowledging that prosecutors cannot always control certain persons but must exercise reasonable care. It also explains that paragraph (f) goes beyond Rules 5.1 and 5.3. A member felt that the last sentence should be deleted because it may imply that prosecutors need do no more than what is suggested in the sentence. A member agreed that these situations are very fact-sensitive and circumstances always vary. Others felt that the sentence was very useful and pointed out that it does say "ordinarily." A motion to approve the Comment passed 7 to 2.

XXVII. Rule 4.1

See discussion of Rule 1.2.

XXVIII. Rule 4.3

The Chair pointed out a recent letter from the Tort and Insurance Practice Section objecting to the last sentence of the black letter. The Reporter noted that this provision was in the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and ws moved to the Comment by the Kutak Committee. A member who spoke with the TIPS representative stated that their concern is that there is not sufficient leeway for a lawyer dealing with an unrepresented person in situations like negotiating a settlement. They did not feel the Comment was helpful. An observer from the Section stated that he felt the Section had misunderstood the Comment. He proposed a modification of the Comment that was approved by the Commission 9 to 0. The modification was to end the fourth sentence after the words "an unrepresented person"; and to amend the next sentence to read: "So long as the lawyer has explained that the lawyer represents an adverse party and is not representing the person, the lawyer may inform the person of the terms on which the lawyer's client will enter into an agreement or settle a matter, prepare documents that require the person's signature, and explain the lawyer's own view of the meaning of the document or the lawyer's view of the underlying legal obligations." A member observed that he felt this was a good decision but that some will say that it is not sufficiently protective of unrepresented persons.

XXIX. Rule 4.4

The Commission approved a motion to change the scienter requirement in paragraph (b) from "has reason to believe" to "knows or reasonably should know."

A member commented that Comment [4] seemed at odds with the black letter. The Reporter pointed out that the Commission had wanted a Comment that acknowledged that a decision to return the document unread is within the professional judgment of a lawyer.

XXX. Simultaneous Negotiations

The Commission reviewed a proposal regarding simultaneous negotiations but deferred the matter until the Commission's conference call on September 26, 2000.

XXXI. Rule 7.1

The Commission on Lawyers' Responsibility for Client Development has proposed that paragraph (a) be restored to the Rule because the deletion might imply that the body of law built up around that paragraph is no longer valid. The Commission suggests that since the Ethics 2000 Commission intends no substantive change by the deletion, that the paragraph be restored. A motion to reinstate paragraph (a) passed 11 to 0. The Reporter will make necessary changes to the Comments.

XXXII. Rule 7.2

The Commission agreed with the deletion of "legal service organization" at the end of paragraph (b)(2).

The Commission approved a suggestion by the Reporter to broaden Comment [3] by referring to "electronic media, such as the Internet." The Commission agreed that the last sentence of Comment [3] should end after the word "exchange."

The Client Development Commission also raised an issue about the payment of "usual charges" for organizations other than "not-for-profit lawyer referral services" listed in paragraph (b)(2). That Commission suggested new language for Comment [5] that would endorse such payments. In the absence of sufficient information to make a decision on this issue, the Commission decided to preserve the status quo and to flag the issue in the Reporter's Explanation memorandum. The Commission added that Comment [5] should specifically state that the payment of usual charges shall not include a percentage of the fee or be based on the size of the fee.

XXXIII. Rule 7.3

A motion to strike proposed paragraph (a)(3) as overly broad passed 8 to 1.

A motion to strike proposed paragraph (a)(2) did not pass. Several members felt that the exception was constitutionally required.

The Commission agreed to change "unless the prospective client" at the end of the introduction to paragraph (a) to "unless the person contacted."

A motion was made and seconded to strike proposed paragraph (b)(x) as vague. A member pointed out that the provision only applies to targeted mail because in-person communication is covered in (a). Several members felt that the harm addressed in (x) would be covered in other parts of 7.3 or in 8.4. The motion passed 7 to 4.

XXXIV. Rule 7.4

A member noted that the language in paragraph (d)(1) does not include any of the private certification organizations and is cumbersome with respect to the description of certifying organizations. The Commission concluded that it was sufficient for paragraph (d)(1) to refer only to an organization that has been approved by appropriate state authority or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association and therefore voted to delete the further reference to "another organization approved by an appropriate state authority." The Commission requested that the Reporter add Commentary explaining the types of organizations that might be approved by the state authority to certify specialists.

XXXV. Rule 8.4

The Commission agreed to restore "fraud" to paragraph 8.4(c).

The Commission disagreed with a suggestion from the DOJ to include language in the Comment regarding what constitutes supervision. A member stated that it is not possible to accommodate the conflicting objectives of the DOJ and others. A representative of the DOJ stated that this issue will become more prominent because there have been conflicting decisions recently regarding a law enforcement exception to Rule 8.4. He cited an older ethics opinion (337) regarding legitimate law enforcement. A member stated that this should be sorted out by the courts.

A motion was made to delete Comment [1]. Several members argued that the Comment does not state that a lawyer can instruct or script a client's agent (one of the objections to the Comment), and does make a point that is important to clients. Some members felt that even if the Comment is correct it is politically sensitive. The motion passed 6 to 5.

XXXVI. Rule 8.5

The Commission unanimously approved the Reporter's new language that provides a safe harbor for discipline if the lawyer acted reasonably.

The Commission agreed to keep the language that appears in brackets in Comment [4] and to remove the brackets.

XXXVII. Rule 5.1

The Commission approved the new Comment [1a] on the definition of "firm."

A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed new Comment [7b]. A member argued that it would be better to say nothing than to adopt the new Comment. The vote on the motion was 5 to 5. The Chair voted against the motion.

XXXVIII. Rule 6.1

A motion was made and seconded to adopt a rule requiring mandatory pro bono service. The Commission agreed to take an initial vote with no discussion. The motion passed 6 to 5. Several members felt after the vote that there should be a complete discussion of the issues and there should be express language for consideration. A motion to reconsider passed 8 to 3. The Commission agreed to consider the original motion on a telephone conference call on September 26, 2000 at 2:30 Eastern time.

XXXIX. Rule 5.4

The Commission approved the new paragraph (a)(4) by a vote of 7 to 3.

The Commission agreed that it was not possible to further explicate "professional independence."

XL. Rule 3.1

The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Scienter Subcommittee to delete "the lawyer reasonably believes" in the Rule.

A member argued against the use of "reasonable remedial measures" in Comment [3] because the meaning of those words in Rule 3.3 is very specific and not necessarily appropriate here. A motion to delete Comment [3] passed 10 to 0.

XLI. Future Meetings

The Commission agreed to add a meeting on March 16 - 17, 2001.

Respectfully Submitted,

Charlotte Stretch
Susan Campbell

MEETING OBSERVERS

Matthew C. Applebaum, Delaware Supreme Court
William Barker, American Insurance Association
Leslie A. Belasco, ALI-ABA
David Caylor, International Municipal Lawyers Association
Dane Ciolino, Louisiana Bar Association
Robert Creamer, Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society
Steve Csontos, Department of Justice
John M. Gardner, National Association of Bond Lawyers
Ron Goldstock, Criminal Justice Section
Mary M. Johnston, Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Gayle Lafferty, Delaware Supreme Court
Joseph R. Lundy, Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society
Kevin Mohr, State Bar of California
Thomas Morgan, Administrative Law Section
Peter Moser, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
George Overton, Chicago Bar Association
Phyllis Rubinstein, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section
William P. Smith, National Organization of Bar Counsel
Thomas G. Wilkinson, Pennsylvania Bar Association

Return to Ethics 2000 Home Page | Return to Center's Home Page

Advertisement