Risk Update

Risk Roundup — Judicial DQ Denied, Client Communication Curated


Don’t ‘Reply All’ If Client of Opposing Counsel CC’ed, Bar Says” —

  • “Attorneys who get an email from opposing counsel with that counsel’s client cc’ed shouldn’t hit “reply all” because this likely violates professional ethics rules, the Illinois State Bar Association recently advised.”
  • “Such a reply is deemed a communication with a person represented by counsel in a matter, which is prohibited unless the sending lawyer consents, according to the bar ethics committee’s opinion.”
  • “The opinion, which was approved in October and recently published, stemmed from questions posed by a lawyer representing condominium associations. The lawyer had said they sometimes copy the association board president when communicating via email with opposing counsel during association disputes.”
  • “The ethics committee agreed with other jurisdictions like Kentucky and New York that the act of copying the client doesn’t imply consent.”

Campaign contribution not a reason to disqualify judge from case, Court of Appeals rules” —

  • “A prominent attorney donated more than $200,000 against an Adams County judge’s retention election. But that did not mean the judge should have recused himself from a case involving the firm’s lawyers, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.”
  • “‘[W]e conclude that the motion to disqualify did not, as a matter of law, allege sufficient facts supporting a reasonable inference of actual or apparent bias or prejudice to require disqualification,’ wrote former Justice Alex J. Martinez, who sat on the appeals panel at the chief justice’s direction.”
If you liked this post, please share it: