Ethics 的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则

Ethics 的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则 (Effective 2/1/07)

Effective February 1, 2007, the D.C. Court of Appeals amended the D.C. 规则 of Professional Conduct in the most comprehensive revision to the 规则 since they first became effective on January 1, 1991. Although the vast majority of opinions issued by the D.C. 酒吧 法律道德 Committee (“Committee”) prior to the effective date of the amended 规则 are substantively unaffected by the amendments, there are some that simply no longer provide complete guidance in light of the recent changes. 这很关键, 因此, that anyone who seeks guidance from a Committee opinion pay particular attention to the possibility that the 规则 or Comments have changed in relevant ways since the opinion was published. Some of the changes are “non-substantive,” such as the renumbering of a Rule section or a Comment. In these circumstances, the Committee opinion remains valid, even though a particular citation to a Rule or a Comment may no longer be consistent with the current version. The Committee urges anyone consulting an opinion to read it in light of the revised 规则 and Comments. 在下表中, the Committee has identified those opinions that, 在它的判断中, are substantively affected by the amended 规则:

的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则 (Effective 2/1/07)
的意见	相关的变化
意见211: Fee Agreements; Mandatory Arbitration Clauses	D.C. 规则1.8(g)(2) has been revised to clarify the conditions under which a lawyer may settle a claim or potential claim for malpractice. Comment [13] now explains that the Rule does not prohibit lawyers from entering into an agreement with the  client for mandatory arbitration of legal malpractice claims, and there is no requirement that the client have separate counsel before such an agreement is permissible.
意见212: Representation by Law Firm Adverse to Former Client in a Substantially Related Matter After Lawyers Who Represented Former Client Have Left the Law Firm	D.C. 规则1.10(c) now permits a law firm to represent a person with interests directly adverse to those of a client represented by a lawyer who formerly was associated with the firm, so long as none of the remaining lawyers has any information protected by D.C. 规则1.6 that is material to the matter.
意见217: Multiple Representation; Intermediation	D.C. 规则2.2 has been eliminated, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. 规则1.7.
意见218: Retainer Agreement Providing for Mandatory Arbitration of Fee Disputes Is Not Unethical	注释[1]to D.C. 规则1.8 now explains that the requirements of paragraph (a) do not apply to ordinary fee arrangements between client and lawyer, which are governed by D.C. 规则1.5. Moreover, Comment [13] to D.C. 规则1.8 now explains that D.C. 规则1.8 generally permits lawyers to enter into agreements to arbitrate any legal malpractice claim.
意见219: Conflict of Ethical Obligations	D.C. 规则1.6(d) now permits a lawyer whose services were used to further a crime or fraud to reveal client confidences and secrets under certain circumstances to prevent the crime or fraud or to mitigate the harm caused by a client’s crime or fraud. Because a lawyer is now permitted to make certain disclosures under D.C. 规则1.6, the disclosure obligations under D.C. 规则4.1(b)和3.3(d) – both of which are expressly made subject to the obligations under D.C. 规则1.6 – may now be broader.
意见232: Multiple Clients/Criminal Matter	D.C. 规则1.7(c) has been revised to require that each potentially affected client provide informed consent to a representation otherwise prohibited under paragraph (b) and that the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.
意见238: Written Fee Agreements	D.C. 规则1.5(b) has been revised to require that a written fee agreement describe not only the basis or rate of the fee but also the scope of the lawyer’s representation and the expenses for which the client will be responsible.
意见243: Joint Representation in Divorce Cases	D.C. 规则2.2 has been eliminated, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. 规则1.7.
意见253: Referral Fee Arrangement Between Law Firms and Insurance Companies	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. 结果是, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, the discussion about the relationship between the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers in D.C. 规则5.4 and the provision in D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) that had permitted lawyers to pay referral fees to intermediaries under certain conditions.
意见264: Refunds of Special Retainers; Commingling of Such Funds with the General Funds of the Law Firm Upon Receipt	D.C. 规则1.15(d) has been revised significantly since this opinion was issued. Most particularly, D.C. 规则1.15(d) now provides that advances of unearned fees and unincurred costs shall be treated as property 客户端的. The opinion’s contrary determination was based on a prior version of D.C. 规则1.15(d).[1]
意见273: Ethical Considerations of Lawyers Moving from One Private Law Firm to Another	D.C. 规则1.10(c) now permits a firm to represent persons with interests materially adverse to those of a former client in matters which are the same as or substantially related to those in which a formerly associated lawyer represented the client while at the firm where none of the remaining lawyers has any information protected by D.C. 规则1.6 that is material to the matter. The opinion’s contrary conclusion was based on the prior version of D.C. 规则1.10(c).
意见275: Receipt of Confidential Information 酒吧s Subsequent Representation of Another Client in the Same or a Substantially Related Matter Unless Screen Can Be Erected	D.C. 规则1.10(a) no longer contains the potential-client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. That exception is now contained in a new rule, D.C. 规则1.18(d).
意见279: Availability of Screening as Cure for Imputed Disqualification	D.C. 规则1.10(a) no longer contains the potential client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. That exception is now contained in a new rule, D.C. 规则1.18(d).
意见286: Contingent Referral 费用	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. The opinion’s discussion of how the Rule marked a departure from prior ethics law and authorized certain payments to others for the referral of legal business is no longer applicable.
意见294: Sale of Law Practice by Retiring Lawyer	D.C. 规则1.17是新的 and governs the sale of a law practice. This rule (together with Comment [10]) authorizes the sale of a law practice so long as the sale is not financed by increases in fees charged to the transferred clients and existing arrangements between the transferring lawyer and the client as to fees and the scope of the work are honored by the purchasing lawyer.
意见296: Joint Representation: Confidentiality of Information	D.C. 规则2.2 has been eliminated, and Comments [14]-[18] to D.C. 规则1.7 have been added to address special considerations in common representation. 此外,维.C. 规则1.6(d) now permits a lawyer whose services were used to further a crime or fraud to reveal client confidences and secrets under certain circumstances to prevent the crime or fraud or to mitigate the harm caused by a client’s crime or fraud.
意见299: Duty of Confidentiality to the Corporate Client That Has Ceased Operations	D.C. 规则1.6(d) now permits a lawyer whose services were used to further a crime or fraud to reveal client confidences and secrets under certain circumstances to prevent the crime or fraud or to mitigate the harm caused by a client’s crime or fraud.
意见302: Soliciting Plaintiffs for Class Action Lawsuits or Obtaining Legal Work Through Internet-Based Web Pages	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. 结果是, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically the discussion about the steps that a lawyer must take when paying fees to participate in a web-based bidding service to satisfy the conditions of D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5).
意见306: Practicing Law While Simultaneously Selling Insurance	D.C. 规则5.7是新的. It provides that a lawyer shall be subject to the 规则 of Professional Conduct in the provision of services that might reasonably be performed in conjunction with and are related to the provision of law services. This opinion remains consistent with D.C. 规则5.7, but it relied only on Comment [25] (now renumbered [36]) to D.C. 规则1.7 for the conclusion that a lawyer may sell insurance products to clients so long as the lawyer makes full disclosure, 获得同意, and concludes that his or her professional judgment on behalf 客户端的 will not be adversely affected.
意见307: Participation in Government Program Requiring Payment of Percentage of Fee	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. 结果是, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, the discussion about the steps that a lawyer must take when paying to participate in a government-run schedule program for legal services to satisfy the conditions of D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5).
意见311: Choice-of-Law 规则 for Professional Conduct in Non-Judicial Proceedings	D.C. 规则8.5(b)(1) now applies more broadly to conduct in connection with a “matter pending before a tribunal” rather than only in connection with a “proceeding in a court before which a lawyer has been admitted to practice.”
意见329: 非营利组织 Organization Fee Arrangement with an Attorney to Whom It Refers Matters	D.C. 规则5.4(a)(5) now provides that a lawyer may share legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, 保留, or recommended employment of the lawyer in the matter and that qualifies as tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The opinion’s requirement that reimbursements be permitted only to recoup the nonprofit’s out-of pocket expenses and not to provide some portion of the fees collected is no longer necessary given that D.C. 规则5.4(a)(5) now expressly authorizes the sharing of legal fees under these circumstances.

[1]When 意见264 was published in 1996, D.C. 规则1.15(d) provided that “[a]dvances of legal fees and costs become the property of the lawyer upon receipt. Any unearned amount of prepaid fees must be returned to the client at the termination of the lawyer’s services in accordance with 规则1.16(d).D.C. Court of Appeals amended D.C. 规则1.15(d), effective January 1, 2000, 澄清一下, “[a]dvances of unearned fees and unincurred costs shall be treated as property 客户端的 pursuant to paragraph (a) until earned or incurred unless the client consents to a different arrangement.尽管D。.C. Court of Appeals also made some minor modifications to D.C. 规则1.15(d) in the most recent amendments that became effective on February 1, 2007, the earlier amendments to the rule are the ones directly relevant to 意见264.