The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct™ is a trusted resource that helps attorneys understand cases and decisions that directly impacts their work, practice ethically, and...
By Samson Habte
July 8 --A lawyer who botched a client's immigration matter may stay on as counsel because he took key ameliorative steps to minimize the potential emergence of a “prior work” conflict of interest that otherwise would require his withdrawal, the Connecticut bar's ethics committee concluded June 18.
A “prior work” conflict arises when a lawyer makes an error and “there is a significant risk” that his continued representation of the affected client “will be materially limited” by the lawyer's “personal interests, in this case [his] desire to mitigate [his] malpractice exposure,” the committee explained.
The present inquiry addressed a lawyer who made a mistake that caused his client's green card application to be delayed for at least two years. The committee said the lawyer took several important steps that diminished the possibility of a “prior work” conflict, including:
• promptly discussing the lawyer's error and its potential consequences with the client, and advising her to “speak to other attorneys to confirm [that] explanation”;
• providing the explanation in a letter, and getting written consent to his continued representation; and
• meeting with a government lawyer and asking that any error not be attributed to the client.
The analysis that the Connecticut ethics panel conducted in finding that the erring lawyer's withdrawal was not required comports with what other authorities have said about how to navigate “prior work” conflicts.
Promptly Admit Error. Courts and commentators have stressed that promptly disclosing a mistake is an essential prerequisite to heading off a potential “prior work” conflict. The indicate that such disclosure is mandated by Rule 1.4, which requires lawyers to keep clients “reasonably informed about the status” of their matter.
“Where the mistake is likely to give rise to a malpractice claim against the attorney, it is clear that the attorney must inform the client of the mistake as part of her duty to keep the client 'reasonably informed,'” one author has said. John P. Brumbaugh, The Ethics of “Oops”: Communicating About Mistakes With Clients and Others, ABA Litigation Section Annual Conference 2014 (citing New York State Ethics Op. 734, 17 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 42 (2000); Minnesota Ethics Op. 21, 25 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 646 (2009)).
Disclosure Should 'Hurt.' The same author advises that “In the case of an underlying work conflict, the lawyer must, at a minimum, recite the relevant facts, which will usually require description of the attorney's mistake in agonizing detail. (As one attorney ethics expert once described it, writing the letter should 'hurt.')” Brumbaugh, supra.
And like the Connecticut ethics committee, the author stresses the importance of advising the client to consult with another attorney before agreeing to waive a potential “prior work” conflict. “The fact that the client had independent counsel advising it concerning whether to continue to employ the attorney is powerful evidence in favor of the effectiveness of the client's consent,” Brumbaugh wrote.
Analyze Potential Adversity Fairly. Other authorities also emphasize the importance of objectively analyzing whether a potential “prior work” conflict is amenable to waiver through informed consent.
“Generally, the [lawyer's] interest in defending the quality of the work product or performance is congruent with that of the client on whose behalf it was rendered,” according to Iowa Ethics Op. 09-03, 25 Law. Man. Prof. Conduct 494 (2009).
“But congruency or mutuality of interest does not in and of itself prove lack of a material limitation under [Rule 1.7(a)(2)],” the Iowa panel added. “What is at issue is the 'lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives.' The risk is that a lawyer or law firm whose work product is attacked may easily become subjective and self-defensive at the expense of providing objective and independent judgment to the client.”
“On the facts presented, we see no indication that your continued representation of the client presents such a risk or would affect your ability to properly represent your client,” the panel said in finding no disqualifying conflict under Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2).
“Any steps you take to advance your client's [green card] petition will have the secondary effect of mitigating your firm's malpractice exposure,” it said. “Further, your conduct does not reflect any action that could be construed as an attempt to mitigate your malpractice exposure at the expense of your client's interests.”
Accordingly, the committee said, there was “no indication” the mistake “will interfere with [the lawyer's] professional judgment or that [he] will fail to pursue appropriate courses of action on [his] client's behalf.”
But the committee said future events may require the lawyer to reconsider whether his potential conflict has developed into an actual one.
“[If], upon reflection, you assess that there is a significant risk that you would take actions to cause your client's [green card] petition to be denied for reasons other than your mistake, thereby limiting your firm's malpractice exposure, there would be a clear conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a)(2), requiring your withdrawal from representing the client,” the committee said.
The committee also determined that Rule 1.8(e), which prohibits financial assistance to clients, does not forbid the inquiring attorney to reimburse $2,500 in filing fees the client had paid to the government over the past five years.
“On these facts,” it said, “reimbursing the filing fees is not 'financial assistance' within the meaning of Rule 1.8(e) because here the reimbursement is restitution and so falls outside the prohibition of Rule 1.8.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Samson Habte in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kirk Swanson at email@example.com
Copyright 2014, the American Bar Association and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)