Podcasts about aba model rules

Next time your opposing counsel takes issue with something you say, don't be surprised to find a complaint in the next filing citing to rule 8.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct—the new “snitch rule.”There are about a dozen terms of legal art in the snitch rule, so we asked Judge Meredith Jury (Ret.) and Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin what they mean:If you arguably misstate fact or law, is that a reportable event? Answer: Assume it is.What will this do to collegiality in the profession? Answer: Nothing good.If a partner committed indiscretions with the trust account, does it matter that you didn't know about it? Answer: Don't count on it.Every other state already has a snitch rule. How much guidance do they provide on its application? Answer: Very little.Will the snitch rule drive in reports to prevent Girardi-type scandals? Answer: The Bar had received some 200 reports about Girardi, so it's unclear what more reports would have done.But the snitch rule is a good idea, right? Answer: Check back in after a few years.And something you probably didn't know: The reason California doesn't follow the ABA Model Rules is because they are rules of ethics, where California's Rules are rules of discipline. We discuss the difference in theory (interesting!) and the difference in application (not much, actually).Judge Meredith Jury's (Ret.) biography.Bankruptcy Specialist Stella Havkin's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 8.3, “Reporting Professional Misconduct”Ethics Spotlight: The New ‘Snitch Rules', California Lawyers Association, Nov. 2023.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

In 2013, the ABA Journal named Renee Knake Jefferson a Legal Rebel for her work co-founding the Michigan State University's ReInvent Law Laboratory and rethinking how legal services could be delivered to consumers. In 2024, she's taking a look back at more than a decade of research and experimental programs aimed at improving access to justice–the successes and the failures. On this episode of the Modern Law Library, Jefferson and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss her new book, Law Democratized: A Blueprint for Solving the Justice Crisis. The scale of the issue is daunting: Jefferson cites a study finding that 87% of American households facing legal issues don't even attempt to seek legal assistance. “Civil legal disputes—think child support, citizenship, consumer complaints, custody, divorce, employment, guardianship, housing, medical needs—make their way to more than fifteen thousand courts throughout the United States each year,” Jefferson writes. “Whatever the root cause, a massive delivery problem clearly exists for personal legal services.” Jefferson shares examples of alternative business structures and access-to-justice projects from around the world that challenged old client models. Some–like offering legal services inside British grocery stores–were not successes. “In theory, consumers could pick up a will with a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, allowing them to resolve legal problems in a place they already regularly transact,” Jefferson writes. “But grocery store law never flourished.” Other ventures fared better, and Law Democratized compiles a number of suggestions based on research findings and real-world experiences. Jefferson says she intends the book to not only be a record of what's been tried, but to also serve as a user-friendly way for the public to learn about changes they could be advocating for at local, state and national levels. Much of the discussion around improving access to justice involves regulatory reform, and Jefferson shares what has been discovered in states like Utah and Texas through the establishment of regulatory sandboxes. Jefferson also shares ideas about how law schools can be serving their communities as well as their students. Law Democratized suggests ways antitrust law and the First Amendment could be used to expand the public's access to civil legal services without the direct use of lawyers. Jefferson and Rawles also discuss her expertise in legal ethics, and what she thinks about the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. Jefferson, who writes the Legal Ethics Roundup newsletter on Substack, explains why she doesn't see the need for an immediate rewriting of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to address the new technology.

On today's episode our host Mary Vandenack, CEO, Founder and Managing Partner at Vandenack Weaver Truhlsen, and Gretchen McGill, a Partner at Dvorak Law Group discuss the 8.4g in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule covers harassment and discrimination in the practice of law, but it has not been adopted in all states, including Nebraska. Listen in as they explain the rule and the history of the 2016 amendment, why it matters if it is adopted, the key changes that need to be made, and the status of the rule in Nebraska.A Hurrdat Media Production. Hurrdat Media is a digital media and commercial video production company based in Omaha, NE. Find more podcasts on the Hurrdat Media Network and learn more about our other services today on HurrdatMedia.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lawyers are largely limited to practicing law in the states in which they are licensed. But now, calling that rule anachronistic, the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers has asked the American Bar Association to amend the model rules that govern law practice to allow lawyers admitted in any U.S. jurisdiction to practice law and provide legal advice to clients anywhere in the country. “Our proposal advocates that a lawyer admitted in any United States jurisdiction should be able to practice law and represent willing clients without regard to the geographic location of the lawyer or the client, without regard to the forum where the services are to be provided, and without regard to which jurisdiction's rules apply at a given moment in time,” APRL President Brian Faughnan said in a letter to ABA President Reginald M. Turner. On this episode of LawNext, Faughnan joins host Bob Ambrogi to discuss why APRL has concluded that the change is critical to a “21st Century approach to the practice of law.” They discuss the APRL study and report that called for replacement of the current Rule 5.5 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, APRL's proposed new version of 5.5 that would allow multi-jurisdictional practice, and why Faughnan believes there is a strong likelihood that the ABA will at least give strong consideration to the change.  In his day job, Faughnan is a shareholder in the Tennessee law firm Lewis Thomason, where his practice includes representing lawyers and law firms in disciplinary matters.  Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.  Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, and MerusCase, and e-payments platform Headnote. If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has said, “the development of AI will shape the future of power.” AI is coming and coming hard. The meaningful application of law and ethics will help determine whether we maximize the opportunities and minimize and mitigate the risks. Law and ethics will, or could and should, distinguish democratic and American AI from authoritarian applications of AI. Law and ethics will bind like-minded alliances in the AI field and it will help to build and sustain public trust and support for appropriate AI applications. The converse is also likely. If, for example, the public does not trust the government’s use of AI because of certain facial recognition applications, it may not trust the government with using AI to facilitate contact tracing amidst a pandemic. This session will consider the ethical use of AI in national security decision-making including: (1) The use of predictive algorithms; (2) Potential AI decision-making redlines and permits; and (3) What is it national security lawyers should know and should ask about AI before it is used to inform and execute national security decisions. Corin Stone is a Scholar-in-Residence at American University's Washington College of Law: https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/cstone/bio Hon. James E. Baker is the Director of the Institute of Security Policy and Law at Syracuse University: http://law.syr.edu/profile/the-hon.-james-e.-baker References: - James E. Baker, The Centaur's Dilemma: National Security Law for the Coming AI Revolution. Brookings Institution Press, 2020. Introduction: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_national_security/centaurs-dilemma-introduction.pdf Chapter 10: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_national_security/centaurs-dilemma-chapter-10.pdf - Department of National Intelligence, "Artificial Intelligence Ethics Framework for the Intelligence Community." June, 2020. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/AI_Ethics_Framework_for_the_Intelligence_Community_10.pdf - Ashley Deeks, “Predicting Enemies,” 104 Virginia Law Review 1529 (2018). https://www.virginialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/104VaLRev-2.pdf - Department of Defense Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2091996/dod-adopts-ethical-principles-for-artificial-intelligence/ -ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_national_security/model-rules-ai-webinar.pdf - "Principled Artificial Intelligence – Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI." Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Jan. 2020: https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2020/principled-ai

Andrew Perlman is one of the nation’s leading forces helping to establish the future of legal education and legal practice.  As a professor and now dean at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, he has helped drive the creation and development of programs for teaching about legal innovation and technology. He was founding director of Suffolk’s Institute on Legal Innovation and Technology and its related legal technology and innovation concentration for law students. He also helped establish Suffolk’s Legal Innovation and Technology Lab, or LIT Lab, where law students are able to work directly on legal tech and data science projects.  Perlman has also been a leading force in national initiatives to shape the future of law practice and access to justice. He was chief reporter for the American Bar Association’s Commission on Ethics 20/20, which was responsible for updating the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to reflect changes in technology and increased globalization. He also served as the vice chair of the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services, which produced projects and recommendations designed to improve how legal services are delivered and accessed, and he was the inaugural chair of the governing council of the ABA’s Center for Innovation. Perlman joins host Bob Ambrogi to share thoughts on the present and future of legal education, legal practice, and legal regulatory reform.  Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.  ASG LegalTech is the company bringing innovation to the legal space with modern and affordable software solutions. ASG LegalTech’s suite of technology includes the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, and MerusCase, and e-payments platform Headnote. Everlaw is a cloud-based ediscovery platform that enables law firms, corporations, and government agencies to collaboratively discover information, illuminate critical insights, and act on key evidence. XIRA.com is where potential clients find, book and meet with attorneys in one place. For attorneys, XIRA is abolishing the subscription model for tech tools, providing free, fully integrated practice management software, e-billing, online scheduling, document management and video conferencing.

Technology is pulling lawyers and law practices into the modern age but how can you, as a lawyer and business owner, use technology to improve your practice management while remaining compliant with the ethics rules? Along with using technology, how can you apply project management concepts to improve your business? I’m joined by John Grant, Founder of the Agile Attorney network. John works with lawyers and legal teams, acting as an outside COO to help them uncover new ways of practicing law.   What We Discuss in This Episode: Why lawyers seek to derive intrinsic value from their practices What the correlation is between the first five rules of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and project management? What project management is and how it's applied in a law firm setting The lean startup methodology, the minimum viable product and how lawyers can apply this concept while writing briefs What ethics rules lawyers must be aware of when they’re applying project management methodologies Can certain project management methods improve client-attorney relationships? Can you effectively and competently represent a client when applying lean methodology? How value is determined and measured How your law practice processes evolve the more you test procedures and listen to your clients Should you utilize a quality control checklist when you’re drafting motions or conducting research and if so, what should be included on the list? Resources Mentioned: ** UPDATED MARCH 2019 – John Grant’s Agile Productivity for Legal Professionals course is now available at https://agile.legal/p/agile-productivity-for-legal/?product_id=1062770. Drive by Daniel Pink ABA Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.1-1.5 The Lean Startup by Eric Ries Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value by David Graeber Billie Tarascio - The Lawyerist Podcast interview Oregon State Bar PLF (Professional Liability Fund) Kaizan  John’s webinar  Contact Information Twitter: https://twitter.com/jegrant3 www.agileattorney.com Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

ABA Model Rule 1.1 states that a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. While this duty has existed for a while, the more recent addition of Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 makes it essential for lawyers to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology[.]” This demands a shift in the way lawyers approach their understanding and use of technology in their legal practices. Joining me today to discuss the intersection of technology and ethics is Ivy Grey, bankruptcy attorney, legal tech writer, and creator of American Legal Style for PerfectIt, which is a legal specific proofreading program for lawyers that runs within Microsoft Word.  What You’ll Learn in This Episode: What ABA Model Rule 1.1, specifically comment 8, requires of lawyers Why it is no longer efficient or even acceptable for lawyers to be luddites What the ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 5 add to the discussion? What does it mean to be “competent” according to the Model Rules? Even if you’re delegating work to your staff or junior attorneys, are you still required to be competent? What are the six basic technological areas that help lawyers perform their work competently? What are some ethical failings of not understanding the basics of using technology? Being technologically competent doesn’t require you to code or understand blockchain The role that understanding the basics of technologies plays in helping you understand the substance of your clients’ cases If you choose to manually perform work that can be automated, you might be in an ethical grey area, according to the ABA Model Rules 1.5 What Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 require of you when it comes to ethical supervision and delegation How does the duty of competence govern your interactions with third party vendors, like website developers? Resources: Catherine Reach's LinkedIn Lex Tech Review TutorPro Casey Flaherty Twitter Casepeer MyCase Clio Legal.intelligentediting.com Contact Information Twitter: https://twitter.com/ivybgrey LinkedIn Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, and Tunein and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

I’m diving into the changes that came about with the new revamp of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Several years ago, the California Supreme Court convened a commission to work on bringing California's Rules into alignment with the ABA Model Rules. The Commission’s Rules were recently adopted by the Supreme Court and they go into affect later this year in 2018.  In this episode, I’m breaking down what California lawyers need to know about the changes and how they impact their law practices.  What I Explain In This Episode: California still hasn’t adopted the Model Rules; they simply amended California’s existing rules The way the rules are numbered have been completely revamped and they’re a bit confusing California is finally aligned with best practices when it comes to advance fees and now require that lawyers deposit those fees in client trust accounts What about sex with clients? When can a lawyer have sex with his/her client? The new client communication rule (CA New Rule 1.4) requires lawyers to advise their clients and manage their expectations as they relate to a lawyer’s conduct and capabilities What should a lawyer do when a client is engaging in conduct that is legal under California law but not legal under Federal law. This proposed Rule 1.2.1 was not adopted yet and is still up for discussion The new conflict of interest rules (New Rule 1.7, replacing old Rule 3-310) require that lawyers look more globally at the client and the relationship to find any conflicts New Rule 1.18 provides rules that apply to the attorney-client consultation and what confidentiality issues exist How this old rule (CA old Rule 2-400) provided greater protection for a lawyer who was accused of discrimination. The new rules are stricter and in some regard, less fair, when it comes to these allegations Resources: You can find all of the new rules here.  California Lawyers Association Solo and Small Firm Section Webinar: CA Rules of Professional Conduct: What the 2018 Rule Updates Mean to You– June 7th, 2018 Presented by James Ham and Megan Zavieh Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

There are many instances when a lawyer might want to turn to the press and media to engage them in a way that helps their existing clients. While there are certainly numerous marketing benefits to engaging the press, there’s also a huge opportunity to offer unique legal services to clients in addition to litigation. We’re exploring how to be more media-savvy for the benefit of our clients in this episode. I'm joined by Wayne Pollock, Founder and Managing Attorney at Copo Strategies, a national legal services and communications firm helping attorneys and clients ethically, strategically, and proactively engage the court of public opinion. What We Discuss in This Episode: Why many lawyers might think their cases are too "small" for the media to even care (but why that's a huge mistake)  What two tracks lawyers should think about with regards to engaging the media Despite a judge's or jury’s ability to “block out” press coverage of a case, it’s human nature to be impacted by what is read and heard. That alone is sufficient to want to engage the press and take the opportunity to shape the case prior to entering the court A Pennsylvania attorney who released confidential taped conversations to the press and the ramifications of his actions What lawyers should know about ABA Rule 1.6 and Rule 3.6 when speaking with the press Rule 3.6(b) and (c) are safe harbors that delineate what lawyers are allowed to discuss with the media How lawyers can use the media as a defense mechanism on behalf of your client? How long it takes for a statement that taints a client’s case to dissipate from a juror’s mind What about statements that are only allowed to be made inside of court but not outside? How do lawyers deal with those? Attorneys can be liable for defamation if previously-filed copies of complaints are provided to reporters Why it’s important for lawyers to work with PR companies who are familiar with ethical rules The three categories of benefits for lawyers who utilize the media When does privilege apply to PR firms and why is it important to know?  Resources Mentioned: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 ABA Formal Opinion 480   Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6 Defamatory article: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sanford-heisler-sharp-files-100-million-gender-pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination-lawsuit-against-am-law-giant-morrison--foerster-300639108.html Bochetto v. Gibson, 860 A.2d 67 (Pa. 2004) Wayne’s Contact Information: Website: www.copostrategies.com Email address: waynepollock@copostrategies.com Phone number: 215.454.2180 Wayne’s free guide for lawyers to help them avoid common mistakes when they speak to reporters: www.mediamistakeslawyersmake.com Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Technology is pulling lawyers and law practices into the modern age but how can you, as a lawyer and business owner, use technology to improve you practice management while remaining compliant with the ethics rules? Along with using technology, how can you apply project management concepts to improve your business? I’m joined by John Grant, Founder of the Agile Attorney network. John works with lawyers and legal teams, acting as an outside COO to help them uncover new ways of practicing law.   What We Discuss in This Episode: Why lawyers seek to derive intrinsic value from their practices What the correlation is between the first five rules of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and project management? What project management is and how it's applied in a law firm setting The lean startup methodology, the minimum viable product and how lawyers can apply this concept while writing briefs What ethics rules lawyers must be aware of when they’re applying project management methodologies Can certain project management methods improve client-attorney relationships? Can you effectively and competently represent a client when applying lean methodology? How value is determined and measured How your law practice processes evolve the more you test procedures and listen to your clients Should you utilize a quality control checklist when you’re drafting motions or conducting research and if so, what should be included on the list? Resources Mentioned: ** UPDATED MARCH 2019 – John Grant’s Agile Productivity for Legal Professionals course is now available at https://agile.legal/p/agile-productivity-for-legal/?product_id=1062770. Drive by Daniel Pink ABA Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.1-1.5 The Lean Startup by Eric Ries Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value by David Graeber Billie Tarascio - The Lawyerist Podcast interview Oregon State Bar PLF (Professional Liability Fund) Kaizan  John’s webinar  Contact Information Twitter: https://twitter.com/jegrant3 www.agileattorney.com Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

The legal profession is evolving and yet, so many of the ethics rules can’t seem to keep up. They are simply outdated and need a 21st century facelift.  I’m joined by Eric Cooperstein, an ethics consultant and practitioner in Minneapolis, and we explore the relevance of several of the ABA Model Rules. We also offer our own insight on how these rules can be updated to reflect the realities of the legal profession today. What We Discuss in This Episode: Why the rules need to be updated in order to spur innovation in the legal profession How Rule 5.4 as it currently stands affects who lawyers can share profits with (even when it comes to their own paralegals) What is Rule 5.4 designed to protect against? Is that still a relevant concern nowadays? How other rules, like Rule 4.2 - communication with a represented person, and Rule 4.3 - dealing with an unrepresented person, contradict Rule 5.4 Why the belief that lawyers are improperly influenced by third parties is not based on any empirical data How legal companies run by non-lawyers aren’t restricted like lawyers are so they’re able to innovate faster Rules restricting practicing in multiple jurisdictions unless admitted to those bars - are they unrealistic in our current legal climate? Are lawyer non-compete agreements beneficial? Resources Mentioned:  Bates v. Arizona State Bar  ABA Model Rule 1.1 ABA Model Rule 4.2 ABA Model Rule 4.3 ABA Model Rule 5.4 ABA Model Rule 5.5 ABA Model Rule 5.6 Contact Eric’s Twitter @ethics_maven www.ethicsmaven.com Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

In 2009, the American Bar Association created the Commission on Ethics 20/20 to examine in depth how changes in technology affect the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The commission made many recommendations and, most notably, the ABA modified Rule 1.1 regarding lawyer competence. In the new version, Rule 1.1 Comment 8 reads “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology...” But what does it really mean to be competent in technology as a lawyer? In this episode of The Digital Edge, Jim Calloway interviews lawyer and legal technology blogger/podcaster Bob Ambrogi about the lawyer's duty of technology competence, how it applies to discovery and confidentiality, and how technology can really benefit lawyers too. Topics include: Tech duty: regulatory burden versus the reality of practicing law today State bars that have adopted the ABA rule change Implications of the California eDiscovery Ethics Opinion Relevant technology and knowing what you don't know Getting up to speed on encryption eDiscovery and knowing how to collect, preserve, and search data properly How to effectively contract out competence The duty to supervise Benefits of technology in practice management Special thanks to our sponsors, ServeNow, CloudMask, and Scorpion.

Law Technology Now returns as Monica Bay and Bob Ambrogi bring the show back to the air in an exciting new format. By alternating hosting duties back and forth, the show is designed to provide a different perspective episode to episode. Catch up with our hosts as they discuss their predictions for 2016, ideas for future show topics, and why it’s an exciting time to be practicing law. Despite their shared belief that legal technology is generally good for the industry and increases access to justice, both Monica and Bob recognize that there are pros and cons. Monica warns that lawyers who can’t keep up with innovations may be forced into early retirement whereas Bob debates the liberating versus enslaving effects of constant connectivity. Now that some 20 states are conforming with the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct by requiring lawyers to be competent in technology, it looks like the only way to go is forward. Welcome back listeners! Discussed on this episode: Updates to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Lex Machina and LexisNexis Avvo Rocket Lawyer Legalzoom Empowered or Enslaved: Technology’s Effect of the Legal Profession by Bob Ambrogi

Lucian T. Pera is a partner with the Memphis, Tennessee, office of Adams and Reese LLP. His practice includes civil trial work, including commercial litigation and media law, and he counsels and represents lawyers, law firms, and others on questions of legal ethics and the professional responsibility of lawyers. A Memphis native, he is an honors graduate of Princeton University and Vanderbilt University School of Law. He served for five years on the ABA “Ethics 2000” Commission, which rewrote the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. From 1995 through 2009, he led the Tennessee Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Under his leadership, the committee developed and successfully proposed to the Tennessee Supreme Court new legal ethics rules for Tennessee based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. He has chaired the editorial board of the ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct, has served as president of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, and serves as a member of the Advisory Board for the Miller-Becker Institute for Professional Responsibility of the University of Akron. He is also the immediate past Treasurer of the American Bar Association, a former member of its Board of Governors and Executive Committee, and has served in the House of Delegates since 1990. He also serves as Vice President of the Tennessee Bar Association and will be its President in 2017.

Cloud based software platforms and Comment 8 on the ABA Model Rule 1.6 on Confidentiality of Information have sent shudders across state bars nationwide. The mounting pressures for innovation and increased technology competence have left many lawyers scrambling for answers. As uncertainty gives way to reason, the legal profession is starting to provide guiding parameters to attorneys trying to stay in compliance. On this Special Report, Executive Director Jayne Reardon of the Commission on Professionalism to the Illinois Supreme Court sits down with Legal Talk Network producer Laurence Colletti. Together, they discuss the ABA Model Rules, possible changes thereof, and the erosion of jurisdictional practice boundaries. Tune in to hear more about alternative business structure law firms and how they might apply to Limited License Legal Technicians.