#legal-ethics

#legal-ethics

Lawyers often need to represent clients that do not have too many defenses for the crimes charged or the civil wrongs alleged. However, our adversarial system of justice requires that people get solid representation since justice is easier to attain when the best arguments are presented by all sides. As attorneys, it can sometimes be easy to give up and throw in the towel on certain aspects of a representation. However, in most situations, lawyers should not go down without a fight.

Here at Kaleidoscope, the newly minted 8am's inaugural conference, lawyers gathered to hear about the dangers lurking in their pockets. Rather than being happy to see us, the phones they lug around carry a ticking ethical timebomb poised to erupt as their terminally Millennial clients demand to talk about their cases over SMS. It's not an outlier scenario anymore. Mark Palmer, Chief Counsel of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, explained that 59 percent of clients want to communicate with their lawyers by text.

For many legal professionals, the idea of using social media for marketing can feel, at best, undignified, and at worst, like a potential ethical minefield. The traditional pillars of legal marketing-referrals, networking, and community events-have been the standard for generations. But in 2025, the way potential clients find and vet an attorney has fundamentally changed. Their journey almost always starts with a search engine and a scroll through social media.

"It is now settled law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that California law limiting law enforcement coordination with federal immigration enforcement activities 'does not directly conflict with any obligations that the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or other federal statutes impose on state or local governments,'" wrote David Sapp, legal affairs secretary for the governor's office.

On May 20, 2022 - a year after John Durham had obtained evidence showing that the draft SVR report that he always claimed was the basis of his investigation was based on "composite" emails, and as such, proof that the SVR was framing Hillary Clinton - his lead prosecutor, Andrew DeFilippis, openly defied a judge's order.

The allegations made by Mr. Bryant against the firm and its partners are categorically false and repugnant. The firm will vigorously defend itself and our colleagues and intends to explore all available remedies in response to these outrageous claims.

Erez Reuveni highlights the pressure on career attorneys within the Justice Department: "Career attorneys can't...go to court and parrot these similar talking points that have no basis in law and have no support."

Jones, the (now former) federal bankruptcy judge, somehow didn't recuse himself from cases involving Freeman, the (now former) partner at Jackson Walker. As a result, Jones resigned and the Department of Justice sued Freeman's former firm to try to disgorge up to $23 million in fees it collected in the 33 cases overseen by Jones while he was involved with Freeman.

'Each citation, each argument, each procedural decision is a mark upon the clay, an indelible impression that may one day be studied, critiqued, or serve as a cautionary tale.'

Joseph Dunn, former executive director of the State Bar of California, should receive a brief suspension for misrepresentations regarding funding for a trip to Mongolia.

Eastman's conduct undermined democracy itself and warranted disbarment.

"It is shocking that any lawyer, particularly one serving as District Attorney, would act in 'bad faith' and destroy evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation."

Paul, Weiss became the first Biglaw firm to capitulate to Trump’s executive order, leading to significant talent loss and ongoing consequences.

Girardi, who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, was sentenced to seven years and three months in federal prison after being convicted of four counts of wire fraud.

Studstill's behavior violated the judge's order of sequestration and ethical duty to the court, yet 'a whole lot of oddities' make a difference in the case.

"President Trump dismisses court rulings against him as judicial overreach, and sometimes he's right. But what does it say when multiple judges across the political spectrum rule against him on similar sweeping grounds?"

"These citations were 'hallucinated' by ChatGPT in that they either do not exist and/or do not stand for the proposition for which they are cited."

The case highlights the delicate balance judges must maintain between authority and impropriety in wielding their power, especially when addressing juvenile defendants.