Ryan has previously waxed poetic about how some mandatory bars are imposing odd and counterproductive ethics rules and opinions.

This topic resurfaced for me recently as I have been asked to present to a futures committee of a mandatory bar in November. They are wanting me to give them a picture of all that is

Puzzle me this: If a lawyer conversed with a client in front of a law enforcement representative, would the conversation be privileged?

Answer: No.

Conversations held in the presence of any third party, let alone one representing the government, would constitute a waiver of privilege.

Previously on 3Geeks (and perhaps too many times) we have

Image [cc] Bark

Awhile back I posted on how I thought lawyers using Gmail (or any other free email service like that) constituted a waiving of privilege. My argument was that agreeing to share privileged client communications under “a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence” with a third party was on its face –

One of the very first things you hear when you attend a Competitive Intelligence (CI) seminar is that CI is the ethical gathering of intelligence. The reason that ethics is stressed so highly when discussion CI, is that if your CI team is dabbling in unethical behavior (and that gets exposed), it reflects upon your whole organization

Last week I posted on how recent DC Bar opinions would cause clients to have to pay for more lawyer time. I don’t think the DC Bar was attempting to directly protect the lawyers’ market from e-discovery vendors, but instead saw that protection as an unintended consequence. As a result of the post, I received

OK … so that’s not exactly what the DC Bar said, but take a moment and think about what two recent DC ethics opinions are suggesting. The Bar opinions note that many e-discovery vendors providing document review services are either a) practicing law without a license (opinion 21-12), or b) splitting fees improperly with non-lawyers (opinion 362