The Practical Effect of New Ethics Rules: Responding to Subpoenas and Document Requests About Client Information

Q2 Social Sciences
S. Lovett
{"title":"The Practical Effect of New Ethics Rules: Responding to Subpoenas and Document Requests About Client Information","authors":"S. Lovett","doi":"10.5195/JLC.2018.141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"            This article is a comparative overview of the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.6(b) before and after the issuance of the ABA’s Formal Opinion 473, issued on February 17, 2016, which was an attempt to restate and revise the rule’s ethical expectations and to help settle several questions that had plagued the rule’s practical application. A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to his or her client, and the public policy favoring judicial efficiency and fair disclosure during the discovery phase of litigation, often places lawyers in precarious ethical positions. This article attempts to provide guidance on this issue through an analysis of the rule and the context in which a lawyer’s overarching duty to keep his or her client’s information confidential can be precluded by the lawful compulsion to disclose such information without incurring malpractice liability.  ","PeriodicalId":35703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/JLC.2018.141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

            This article is a comparative overview of the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.6(b) before and after the issuance of the ABA’s Formal Opinion 473, issued on February 17, 2016, which was an attempt to restate and revise the rule’s ethical expectations and to help settle several questions that had plagued the rule’s practical application. A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to his or her client, and the public policy favoring judicial efficiency and fair disclosure during the discovery phase of litigation, often places lawyers in precarious ethical positions. This article attempts to provide guidance on this issue through an analysis of the rule and the context in which a lawyer’s overarching duty to keep his or her client’s information confidential can be precluded by the lawful compulsion to disclose such information without incurring malpractice liability.  
新道德规则的实际效果:对传票和客户信息文件要求的回应
本文对2016年2月17日发布的美国律师协会第473号正式意见前后的美国律师协会示范规则1.6(b)进行了比较概述,该正式意见试图重申和修订规则的道德期望,并帮助解决困扰规则实际应用的几个问题。律师对其委托人负有保密义务,而在诉讼的发现阶段,有利于司法效率和公平披露的公共政策往往使律师处于不稳定的道德地位。本文试图通过对规则和背景的分析,为这一问题提供指导,在这一规则和背景下,律师为其客户的信息保密的首要义务可以被法律强制披露这些信息而不产生渎职责任所排除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信