Let’s say you’re a solo practitioner who has a contingency-fee case that takes a really weird turn. You realize you’re in over your head and don’t know how to handle such a weird-turn case. So, you ask another solo practitioner -- one who knows how to handle really-weird-turn cases -- to work with you. You two agree that you will share any recovery.
Do you know how to ethically share the fee?
In my earlier blog post about blogging, I addressed the first big potential minefield for lawyer-bloggers: whether your blog constitutes advertising. Now let’s move to the even stickier issue: if you blog, take care not to run afoul of ER 1.6.
Thinking about starting a legal blog? Maybe you already have one. If you’re an Arizona lawyer, you’ve got some potential ethical minefields to navigate when blogging.
Wouldn’t it be great if, in your fee agreement, your clients agreed not to air any grievances about you on social media?
Yeah, it would be great to prohibit negative reviews. But it’s illegal.
In a case of first impression for the Ninth Circuit, the court held that the phrase “the initial communication” applies to “each debt collector that attempts to collect a debt,” including lawyers who qualify as debt collectors under the statute.