chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
47th ABA National Conference on Professional Responsibility

Conference Schedule

Hyatt Regency Baltimore Inner Harbor | Baltimore, MD | June 1-3, 2022

The National Conference on Professional Responsibility is the annual educational and networking event for lawyers who represent, prosecute, advise, and educate other lawyers on issues of ethics, discipline, professionalism, and more. Join colleagues and friends as they explore and debate current issues facing the profession at this one-of-a-kind, national gathering of lawyers, judges, and professors.

All Times are Eastern Time

Wednesday, June 1

2:00 - 5:00 PM 

Registration, light reception, and dine around sign-up

7:00 PM 

Dutch-Treat Dine Around (various locations / Inner Harbor)

Thursday, June 2

8:45 - 9:00 AM 

Welcome and Opening Remarks
Alice Neece Mine
, Chair,
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
Conference Planning Committee

9:00 - 10:20 AM

Plenary A
Lesser-Evilism or Quitting: The Morality of Lawyering in Evil Regimes
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor

While ethics lawyers most often deal with the regulation of lawyer conduct completely apart from issues of morality, lawyers do have moral obligations concerning their work. In a recent issue of The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Professor David Luban and several commentators wrestle with the proper role of lawyers working within morally abhorrent regimes by focusing on the personal histories of two German lawyers who chose to serve in the German government during the Third Reich, each in key substantive roles. Professor Luban and two panelists join us to publicly assess real-world examples of when morality meets lawyering.

Lucian T. Pera, Partner, Adams and Reese LLP

Kathleen Clark, Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law
David Luban, University Professor and Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown Law
Erica Newland, Counsel, Protect Democracy

10:20 - 10:40 AM - BREAK

10:40 AM - 12:00 PM - Concurrent Breakout Sessions

Breakout #1
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match: Lawyers and Clients Finding Each Other. Does today’s lawyer regulation protect the public or incumbent providers?  
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor

New lawyer-matching services are challenging the boundaries of longstanding lawyer regulation, from laws prohibiting UPL, to rules banning fee-sharing with nonlawyers, to restrictions on non-bar or for-profit lawyer referral services. Service providers must now cope with (or flout) laws like California’s “runners and cappers” law and Florida’s “qualifying provider” rule. We’ll examine how effectively (or not) the ABA Model Rules and jurisdictions’ significantly varied other regulations protect the interests of clients and the public, as well as whether some new approach would serve the public better.

Ronald C. Minkoff, Partner, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Carole J. Buckner, Partner & General Counsel, Procopio;
Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Division Director, Lawyer Regulation, The Florida Bar
David G. Keyko, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Breakout #2
You’re Muted: Helping Lawyers and Law Firms Amplify Diverse Insights 
Constellation C - F, 2nd Floor

Appropriately managing lawyers and staff is an essential component of getting work from everyone in a law firm that supports lawyer competence, adequate communication and client confidence. Many new and diverse lawyers, at the same time, report a lack of consideration among management for their views on how these objectives can best be accomplished within the firm. Senior management needs that information to manage wisely.

This session will consider the legal profession’s efforts to recruit and retain newer and more diverse lawyers across all settings and analyze the varied concerns for working lawyers, including lawyers as employees, as parents, and as mentors and sponsors of others. The panelists will also address whether significant changes have resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic or whether those concerns are increasing due to the change in workforce models.

Aria Eee, Executive Director, Maine Board of Bar Overseers

Emil J. Ali, Partner,  McCabe & Ali, LLP
Linda S. Ostovitz, Principal and Legal Operations Chair, Offit Kurman Attorneys At Law
Julia Q. Peng, Senior Associate, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP

12:00 - 2:00 PM - LUNCH - ON YOUR OWN

2:00 - 3:20 PM -  Concurrent Breakout Sessions

Breakout #3
There’s Good News & Bad News, Which Do You Want First? 
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor                                  

Lawyers tasked with providing internal ethics advice in a law firm can be placed in a difficult position when called upon to deliver bad news to the partnership. That can happen, for example, when a new client can’t be accepted because of conflicts concerns. Also, counsel may need to approach colleagues whose alleged conduct raises professional responsibility or liability concerns. Law firm conflicts lawyers, general counsels, and outside advisors will describe their experiences, hurdles they’ve encountered, and how lawyers charged with these responsibilities may deal with uncomfortable situations or resistant lawyers. Broad stroke issues arising out of the pandemic will also be touched upon.

Wendy J. Muchman, Senior Lecturer, Harry B. Reese Professor of Practice, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Laura K. McAfee, Principal, General Counsel, Beveridge & Diamond PC
Douglas R. Richmond, Managing Director, AON Risk Solutions
Jeffrey P. Reilly, Principal & General Counsel, Miles & Stockbridge PC

Breakout #4
Exploring New Models of Legal Services Regulation: What Makes Sense in Our Changing World? 
Constellation C - F, 2nd Floor

Unprecedented attention is being paid to legal regulation. Numerous reviews in England and Canada are questioning the current models of self-regulation.  In the United States, lawsuits have challenged unified state bars and sandboxes are changing who provides regulated legal services and who regulates legal services providers. This panel will consider recent initiatives that address the question of what modern public interest legal regulation should involve. The speakers will explain how they are approaching the topic of what makes a modern (legal) regulator and whether and how to develop regulation that has a focus on the public interest, light-touch approaches, risk as a lens for regulatory decision making, effective public involvement in governance, and transparency.

Laurel S. Terry, Professor of Law, Emerita, Penn State Dickinson Law
H. Laddie Montague Jr., Chair in Law Emerita, Dickinson Law

Rebecca Durcan, Co-Managing Partner, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc Barristers & Solicitors
Darrel I. Pink, CEO, College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents
Janet K. Welch, Former Executive Director, State Bar of Michigan

3:20 - 3:40 PM - BREAK

3:40 - 5:00 PM - Concurrent Breakout Sessions

Breakout #5
“Three May Keep a Secret, If Two of Them Are Dead” – Ben Franklin  (Reconsidering Rule 1.6)
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor

Model Rule 1.6 prohibits a lawyer from revealing “information relating to the representation of a client” absent client consent or some other exception.  And Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) permits the use of confidential information once the information has become “generally known.” How should these two phrases be defined and what are their practical implications? A panel of lawyers will discuss the difference between the text of these rules and the actual interpretation of each rule; the interplay between the two rules, First Amendment considerations, and questions on the ownership of information. Given the broad scope of the confidentiality rules, was Ben Franklin right?

Whittney A. Dunn, Senior Risk Manager, The Bar Plan

Robert A. Creamer, Lawyer, Cambridge, MA
Terri Garland, Vice President & Sr. Loss Prevention Counsel, Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society, Ltd. (ALAS)
James M. McCauley, Ethics Counsel, Virginia State Bar

Breakout #6
Different Goals, Conflicting Interests? – Regulation of Lawyers by Government Agencies vs. Regulation of Lawyers by State Supreme Courts  
Constellation C - F, 2nd Floor

This panel presentation will discuss the differences in purpose and scope between the regulation of lawyers by government agencies, often pursuant to legislative mandates, and the regulation of lawyers by state supreme court rules, and whether and how these differences can impact the practical decisions lawyers must make in their representation of clients.

Do regulations by government agencies bring with them a consequent erosion of the lawyer's well-known duty of confidentiality with respect to client information, in favor of a more permissive -- and in some cases even required -- duty to disclose client confidences under certain circumstances?   Is the goal of the “place-based” state regulation to instill confidence in the public -- who the courts protect and from whom the lawyers’ clients are drawn -- that the members of the legal profession are worthy of the public’s trust and confidence because they adhere to rigorous ethical standards and place their client’s interests before their own? And is a goal of the “practice-based” regulation by government agencies to require lawyers to conform their representation of clients to other, important public policy goals?

This panel will explore whether there are differences between the practice-based and place-based regulation of the bar, and if so, whether these differences present tensions that lawyers must navigate, between their duties under the ethical rules of the jurisdictions where they have been admitted to practice, and their ethical obligations to the government agencies that are enforcing other regulatory priorities. 

Moderator & Speaker:
Myles V. Lynk, Professor of Law Emeritus, Arizona State University, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel  

Dixie L. Johnson, Partner, King & Spalding LLP
Young K. Lee, Office of Terrorist Financing & Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
James E. Moliterno, Vincent Bradford Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law


Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award / Rosner and Rosner Award Presentations
Atrium, 2nd Floor

5:30 – 7:00PM                  

Atrium, 2nd Floor

Friday, June 3

9:00 AM - 10:20 AM

Plenary B
Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste: Post Pandemic Practice 
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor             

Using the CLIO Report on the impact of the pandemic on the legal industry as a baseline, the panelists will examine what pandemic-wrought changes to the practice of law are beneficial (including access to justice) to clients, lawyers, or the legal system; what changes are problematic; and whether changes in the Rules or the regulation of the profession can promote the beneficial and prevent the problematic. Envisioned to be an interactive session with audience input, the perspectives of regulators, large firms, small firms, urban firms, and rural firms will be explored.

Jared D. Correia, CEO, Red Cave Law Firm Consulting

Randy J. Curato, Vice President, Loss Prevention Counsel, Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society (ALAS)
Kaitlin E. Forster, Practice Management Advisory Service, The District of Columbia Bar
Daniel M. Mills, Practice Management Director, The District of Columbia Bar

10:20 - 10:40 AM - BREAK


Breakout #7
Can You Hear Me Now? Lawyer Competence and Communication in Our Diverse World
Constellation A&B, 2nd Floor                           

Communication is a fundamental component of every lawyer-client relationship. As recognized recently in ABA Formal Op. 500, awareness of, and ability to understand, issues of culture that might affect communication techniques and influence client objectives is inextricably intertwined with providing effective legal advice to a client. This obligation is part of competent representation and cross-cultural misunderstandings are recognized as a source of malpractice claims. This panel will start by sharing foundational knowledge around diversity, inclusion and cultural competence and why it’s important for the legal profession. They will then discuss scenarios that cause misunderstandings and provide guidance on how to build cross-cultural competence. This will be a thought-provoking and interactive session! 

Mahwash  (MAA-wash) Khan (she/her/hers), Communications Counsel, Chair, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Group, LAWPRO
Rashad (ruh-SHAD) L. Morgan (he/him/his), Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP
Chevara (shu-VAH-rah) (she/her/hers) Orrin, Principal Strategist, Race, Social Justice, and LGBTQ, The Winters Group, Inc.

Breakout #8
The History of Regulation: The Pathway to Protecting the Public and Ensuring the Integrity of the Profession  
Constellation C - F, 2nd Floor

Please join us as we travel down the road to explore of the History of Lawyer Regulation and project a path into the future.  This panel will  focus in on the origins of what we currently know as attorney discipline, present some of the industries growing pains from the period between Watergate the era of Big Firm/Big Business and show the current state of the art, with predictions on where we will go from here.  Along the way we will pay special attention to the development of the National Organization of Bar Counsel and its special relationship with other entities such as the American Bar Association and the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers.  And finally, the panel will engage with the audience in a conversation about the most pertinent issues of today, such as Access to Justice, Attorney Wellness, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, how to best mentor and prepare the next generation of disciplinary counsel and the COVID wrinkle.  In sum, attendees will follow the path of landmark events that shaped the History of Lawyer Regulation, including the evolution of the rules of professional conduct, and predict what lays ahead!

Renu Brennan, Bar Counsel, Virginia State Bar
James J. Grogan, Adjunct Professor of Law, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law
Lydia Lawless, Bar Counsel and Adjunct Professor at University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland Wallace (Gene) E. Shipp Jr. Adjunct Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Billy L. Walker, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Office of Professional Conduct Utah 

12:00 - 2:00 PM - LUNCH - ON YOUR OWN


Breakout #9
Assessing and Responding to Racial Disproportionality in the Discipline System  
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor

In 2019, the State Bar of California studied whether there is a disproportionate number of nonwhite lawyers who had been disciplined over the immediately previous 19 years. The study concluded that the percentage of black male lawyers who were disciplined was more than three times that of white male lawyers, with smaller differences for Latino males and black and Latino females; with no meaningful differences for Asians and whites. But the study also concluded that the most meaningful factors for discipline included previous discipline history, the number of complaints, the number of investigations, and the percentage of investigations in which the lawyer was represented by counsel. This program will examine the results of that study, what next steps can/should be taken, and what other jurisdictions can learn from it as they examine their own systems.

Lindsey D. Draper, VP Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, Institute for Well-being in Law

Melanie J. Lawrence, Deputy Chief Trial Counsel, Office of Chief Trial Counsel, The State Bar of California
Christopher T. Robertson, Associate Dean for Graduate & International Programs and Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law

Breakout #10
True or False?  A Prosecutor is a Minister of Justice 
Constellation C - F, 2nd Floor

A prosecutor is a minister of justice whose duties differ from that of a usual advocate; those duties are to seek justice, not merely convict.  This proposition is long established in case law and the Canons, Code and Rules of Professional Conduct, yet we all recognize that when prosecutors fail to honor this duty the repercussions are often serious.  Prosecutors have enormous powers and are charged with the responsibility of exercising those powers judiciously.  Their failure to do so tramples the rights of the most vulnerable within our systems and ill-serves democracy.  Join this panel of experts as we explore the issues related to prosecutorial misconduct.  Are Brady and Rule 3.8 coterminous?  Are pressures to convict, sloppiness in investigation and lack of proper supervision at fault? Is it one bad apple or a systemic failure? What is the role of implicit bias in decision making? The panel will use the recent case of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cassilly as a starting point to discuss these critical issues of professional responsibility.

Wendy J. Muchman, Senior Lecturer, Harry B. Reese Professor of Practice, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Gregory G. Brooker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Attorneys' Office, Minneapolis, MN
Benjamin K. Grimes, Deputy Director, Department of Justice Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO)
Andrew V. Jezic, Founding Partner, Criminal Defense Attorney, Jezic & Moyse Attorneys at Law
Erin Risch, Deputy Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland

3:20 - 3:40 PM - BREAK

3:40 - 5:00 PM

Plenary C
Whither Thou Goest, Will UPL Follow? (Re-conceptualizing UPL) 
Constellation A & B, 2nd Floor

Historically, unauthorized practice of law has been geographically based. Anyone—out of state lawyer or any nonlawyer—who would practice a state’s law either within the state or from any remote location would be subject to discipline under the equivalent of Model Rule 5.5 or other possible sanction under a state statute. Now, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers are reviewing Model Rule 5.5 and state bar associations are authorizing remote practice of a lawyer’s home state law within their geographic location. Some states have considered or are considering allowing non-lawyers to practice law. How should “unauthorized practice of law” be defined? Should a distinction be made between lawyers and non-lawyers? How should Rule 5.5 and state statutes be amended? (This does not address playing in the sandbox—a much bigger question.) But is the end of times at hand?

Dennis A. Rendleman, Lawyer, Springfield, IL

Ghunise Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar
Lynda Shely, Founder, Partner, The Shely Firm
Allen Orr, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

5:00 - 7: 00 - RECEPTION,  Atrium, 2nd Floor

MCLE Information

The ABA will seek 10.6 hours of CLE credit in 60-minute states, and 12.8 hours of CLE credit for this program in 50-minute states* [including 10.6 hours of Ethics credit in 60-minute states and 12.8 hours of Ethics credit in 50-minute states as needed]. Credit hours are estimated and are subject to each state’s approval and credit rounding rules.

*Florida Bar regulators have stated that attorneys will not receive Florida credit for any ABA program, even if they self-apply.