1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

I Love a Parade!

The Risk Tip is itself devoutly apolitical, but recognizes that the coming days will offer occasion for many to exercise their First Amendment rights in favor of this or against that.  You or your loved ones might well participate in the festivities or a march, a counter-march, a counter-counter march, or even a double counter-festivities march.  Unfortunately, the behavior of a crowd does not always reflect well on all of its members, so it is wise to prepare for a variety of contingencies (not to mention the weather).  If you, or those you know, will be out and about, in an organized way, on Friday, Saturday, or in the future, consider the following points on managing your risk:

* Go with a friend; it’s always good to have someone looking out for you (and vice versa).  Have a plan for communicating or meeting up in case you get separated.
* Carry cash and a valid picture ID.
* Make sure your phone and other devices are fully charged; you may also wish to bring a portable charger.
* Be aware of your surroundings at all times.  If something doesn’t feel right, go home or back to your hotel.
* Keep your valuables in front pockets.  Bags are not permitted in some venues or events so check beforehand.  If you do carry a bag, keep it where it can’t be easily snatched or accessed.
* Have a contact plan to stay in touch with someone who isn’t at the march, but knows that you’re there.

Should the worst happen and your peaceable assembly suddenly turns not so peaceable:

* Do not resist law enforcement.  Just do what they say.
* Be respectful and polite when dealing with the authorities, whether it’s law enforcement, the National Park Service, whoever.

The attached clip provides some further guidance on how to behave in the event of an event at an event.  Above all, Remain calm!  All is well!


Go Flash, Go!

I have mixed feelings about the 1980 space opera (yes, that’s a term) Flash Gordon. Campy satire at its worst, it starred Sam Jones who, suffice it to say, was nominated for the first Golden Raspberry Worst Actor award (he narrowly lost to Neil Diamond in The Jazz Singer).  Then again, it featured a pre-Bond Timothy Dalton and a post-Fiddler Topol, basking in the fame of the ubiquitous but unrelated smoker’s toothpaste, as well as the consummate thespian, Max von Sydow.  And of course, there is the famous Queen soundtrack.  Only Freddie Mercury could make “Flash, a-ah, savior of the universe” sound cool.

The plot is ridiculous: a football player and his girlfriend are lured into Dr.  Zarkov’s rocket ship and travel to the planet Mongo, where they overthrow the evil Ming the Merciless to save Earth.   In the climactic scene, Flash lures Ming into thinking that he has failed and disables Ming’s lightning shield defenses, allowing the Hawkmen to penetrate Mingo City, where they impale Ming on his own rocket.  (I suppose I should have included a spoiler alert.  Sorry.)

Flash.  Lure.  Penetrate defenses.  Hmmm.  That sounds familiar.  Hackers use Flash drives to lure unsuspecting users into giving them access to their systems, allowing the hacker to obtain confidential information or insert malware to disable system defenses.

Failing to take reasonable steps to avoid data security breaches can have serious consequences for lawyers and their clients.   It may even be an ethical violation — a number of states recently have issued bar opinions, or amended rules to make explicit, that lawyers have an ethical obligation to keep abreast of technological developments and take steps to avoid data breaches.

So if you are not up to date on the latest technological advances, or if you don’t know a computer worm from an earworm, it may be a good idea to brush up on your technology training.   And if you won’t listen to me, listen to Flash.  “Flash Gordon. Quarterback. New York Jets.”




In the critically acclaimed Pineapple Express, Seth Rogan plays Dale Denton (no relation), a pot smoking process server who winds up on the run after witnessing a murder.  While perhaps not quite Citizen Kane, Pineapple Express certainly ranks with such greats as Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle as one of the leading films of, well, a certain genre.

In this scene, Dale cogently explains the intricacies of his job:

As challenged as they may be, even this pair understands that no one wants to be served with a subpoena.

Litigators regularly need to seek discovery from third parties.  And in a transactional context, lawyers may need to reach out to third parties, even informally, for documents or information.   Sometimes those third parties are also your clients on unrelated matters.

You’re not suing them, so they’re not adverse, right?  That maybe so, but try making that distinction to a client who now has to retain outside counsel to search for and collect massive amounts of ESI to respond to the subpoena it received from its own lawyers.  And what happens if the client decides they want to challenge the subpoena?   I think even Dale (not to mention Harold and Kumar) would get the adversity there.

For these reasons, before serving a subpoena, or even informally asking a third party to produce information, it’s a good idea to run a conflicts check.   This way, you’ll know whether the party you’re about to subpoena is one of your clients and you can take appropriate steps.  Hey, they may even accept process, and you can avoid hiring a process server.

A side benefit of that is that it frees up folks like Dale Denton to pursue other interests.  As one of Dale’s role models might say, that’s awesome.  Totally awesome.

Trojan Rabbits

Most of us associate DQ motions with conflicts.  That’s true, of course.  But a recent decision disqualifying a law firm from a pair of legal malpractice cases had nothing to do with conflicts.  Rather, the court disqualified the firm based on its misuse of an inadvertently produced privileged document.  Upon receiving an email containing legal advice from the opposing party’s attorney in the underlying proceeding, the attorneys failed to notify their opponents. Instead, according to the DQ motion, they retained the document, allowed their client to review it to prepare for a deposition, and used it to question opposing party deponents about the legal advice it contained. The court criticized the conduct as affecting not only the privilege holder’s rights, but also “the integrity of these judicial proceedings and public confidence in them.”

To avoid this unpleasant predicament, lawyers should be aware of their duties relating to inadvertently produced documents. While requirements can vary by jurisdiction, guidelines to keep in mind are:

* Notify. Rule 4.4(b) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires an attorney receiving a document that appears to have been inadvertently sent to promptly notify the sender to permit that person to take protective measures.

* Plan Ahead. Rule 26(f)(3)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the parties to confer at the outset of the case about the handling of privileged documents, including whether to enter a stipulation or secure a court order governing inadvertently produced documents.

* Return, Sequester, or Destroy. Rule 26(b)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in turn, requires a party that has been notified it has received privileged material to “promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has,” to refrain from disclosing and using such information, and also to take reasonable steps to retrieve the information from any third parties to whom the receiving party disclosed it.

So when you seemingly receive a “gift” from your adversary, be careful.  It could have unintended negative consequences.  Then again, maybe not.





July is a big month for holidays.  There is Independence Day, of course.  Many of our colleagues around the globe have their own celebrations too:  Canada Day, Bastille Day, Ivan Kupala Day.  And to capture the full polycentric nature of the month, July 11 is World Population Day.

And then there are the Hallmark holidays that July brings:  Friendship Day, Moon Day, Cow Appreciation Day.  There’s even a National Spinach Day followed, naturally, by National Ice Cream Day.   Personally, I’m looking forward to July 13:  Barbershop Music Appreciation Day.

All these holidays give us a great excuse to go on, well, holiday.  But as we look forward to hitting the beach, the lake, or whatever destination you choose, let’s remember that life goes on back at the office.  Clients, adversaries, and courts don’t necessarily share (or respect) our vacation schedules.

So before loading up the Family Truckster and heading out to Wally World, make sure you do the following:

*Check email and voicemail.  Unless your vacation spot is the North Pole or you otherwise have no connectivity, check your email and voicemail at least a couple of times a day.

*Have an appropriate out-of-office auto response.  If you will be completely offline or will be delayed in responding, make that clear.  You should also change your outgoing voicemail message.

* Make sure someone on your team is on point.  Whether it’s a client call or a motion that gets served,  ensure that someone with knowledge of the matter is poised to deal with any issue arises (and not just put things off til you return).

*Inform your clients.  While you need not give out your itinerary, clients will appreciate knowing in advance that you will be unavailable and knowing who to contact in your absence.  And if you tell them where you are going, they might even have good restaurant recommendations.

*Make sure someone is checking your regular mail for important correspondence.  Yes, some people still use mail.  Don’t let an unopened notice or letter with a seven-day deadline for responding sit on your desk unopened.

*Bring plenty of sunblock.

Once you’ve taken these steps, feel free to enjoy your Independence Day, National Chocolate Day, or Lollipop Day.  Or Green Day.


License to Drive, License to Practice

My son got his driver’s license the other day (not Bart Simpson, the older one).  While he waits for a brand new Mustang to magically appear in the driveway, he’s been studying New York’s laws about what he can and cannot do with a junior license:  no highway driving; no driving past 9 pm without an adult; no driving with two or more non-family member passengers.  And those are only the state rules; he’s had to familiarize himself with the parental laws as well:  no refusing to pick siblings up from their respective activities; no driving above 20 mph (ever); no changing the pre-set radio stations.   (Note:  no texting while driving is also very much a parental rule — as well as a Firm policy — but one about which I don’t joke.)

Lawyers likewise would be well-served spending some time reviewing the licensing requirements that govern their practices.  In this frequent flier economy, lawyers sometimes cross state borders without considering the implications of practicing in a jurisdiction in which they are not admitted.  And state bar regulators are taking note — an increasing number of lawyers are being disciplined for engaging in the practice of law without being licensed in the jurisdiction in which they practice.  Some states have set up special committees tasked with monitoring lawyers and law firms to ensure that lawyers who practice in their states are not improperly holding themselves out (explicitly or implicitly) as being admitted to practice.  Some even troll law firm websites looking for violators.

Nor is it a matter of just being licensed in the state in which you sit.  A California lawyer was recently disciplined after he was found to have violated the unauthorized practice rules of other states by implicitly holding himself out as being admitted to practice in those states, even though he never left California.

And what’s a really easy way to get snagged for UPL?  Failing to renew your registration.  That too can have some real world consequences, including suspension. 

So like my son (who’s still waiting for that Mustang), take some time to ensure that you are complying with your licensing requirements.  And while my son’s studying no doubt has paid off, like the cautious parents that we are, we asked some of our friendly local law enforcement officials to keep an eye out for him on his first solo drive.  We’re so proud.






More than once, the Risk Tip has been inspired by the Futility Closet blog.  The Blog once commented about British stoicism during The Great War, which stereotypically tended to downplay the horrors of the conflict in favor of a “stiff-upper-lip” attitude.  Wrote one officer:  “Nothing is ‘horrible.’ That word is never used in public. Things are ‘darned unpleasant,’ ‘Rather nasty,’ or, if very bad, simply ‘damnable.”  Other examples provided were from a General who reported that his daily constitutional was interrupted by shrapnel that “scattered a shower of bullets around me in an unpleasant manner” and a Private who wrote to complain about the “strafing and a certain dampness.”

One manifestation of this was a postcard provided by the British Army to wounded soldiers:


Soldiers were simply to strike out inapplicable text, and were thus hindered from writing things like “I’ve lost my leg.”

What does this have to do with Risk?  Well, if you’re an attorney with the Department of Justice, you might have to display that same sort of stoicism regarding a recent order from a District Judge in Brownsville, Texas — at least until the inevitable appeal.

Yesterday, the Court concluded that DOJ attorneys appearing before him had failed to exercise their duty of candor to the tribunal.  In a scathing opinion, the Court not only revoked the pro hac vice status of the DC lawyers (suggesting some regret he simply couldn’t disbar them), but also entered an order requiring “any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course.”  Going on, the judge ordered:

The Attorney General of the United States shall appoint a person within the Department to ensure compliance with this Order. That person shall annually file one report with this Court including a list of the Justice Department attorneys stationed in Washington, D.C. who have appeared in any court in the Plaintiff States with a certification (including the name of the lawyer, the court in which the individual appeared, the date of the appearance and the time and location of the ethics program attended) that each has attended the above-ordered ethical training course. That certification shall be filed in this cause during the last two weeks of each calendar year it covers. The initial report shall be filed no later than December 31, 2016. This Order shall remain in force for a period of five years (the last report being due December 31, 2021).

Those who practice the litigation arts know that few things are as unpleasant as a judge who has turned against them.  The Tip is to recognize that the conduct of a single lawyer can have broad implications for one’s colleagues, no matter where they practice.

Att. to Time Entrys

My eighth-grader just showed me his homework.  His assignment is to write a paper describing what he did over Spring break.  Here is what he wrote:

Day 1 – Baseball.  TV. Spoke with people. More TV.
Day 2 – Baseball.  Textd friends.  Textd Sam.  Dinner.
Day 3 – Baeball. Did stuff.
Day 4 – Baseball.  More stuff.  Also did PLSTN.
Day 5 – Ball and Watched TV
Day 6 – Baseball, rd book a little
Day 7 – Dd more of stuff I did on Day 4. Oh, and baseball too.

He thinks his teacher will be very impressed.  I’m not so sure.

See where I’m going with this?  Time entries should include narratives that convey to the client the value that you are contributing each day.  Descriptions should explain the services provided, how the assignment relates to the engagement, and why the time of a professional at your level was needed.

Proofread for accuracy, punctuation, and spelling.  Each time entry should be treated with the care appropriate to any other important communication with a client.

Back to my son.  Not surprisingly, his paper was not well received and he was made to stay after school and complete another task.  A good lesson for us all.

Bart Simpson

Dredgers, Enquiries, and Wire Transfers

It’s a real boost to the legal ego when a foreign company chooses you to handle a major transaction or litigation in the US.  Even better, it’s a brand new client.  And just to be safe, you google them and confirm they are a legit company.

I hate to burst the bubble folks, but it ain’t real.  Here’s how it works:   You get an  email from someone (usually from a foreign country) who seeks a lawyer to assist with debt collection or a transaction and they your name from a bar association or our website.   After a brief communication, your are informed that the adverse party has sent a settlement check or deposit.  The unsuspecting lawyer then deposits the money and wires the proceeds to his “client,” only to later discover that the check was phony.  Of course, the firm’s money that he just wired out is not.

These and other email and telephone scams (often involving wire transfer requests) are becoming more prevalent and lawyers — including at large firms — are falling prey to them all the time.  Recently, a victimized lawyer lost his bid to shift responsibility to his bank.  And bar associations opinions are starting to weigh in as well, suggesting lawyers may have ethical obligations to inform other clients if they are victimized.

Here are some red flags that will tell you whether an unsolicited email is a phony:

*They come from what purport to be foreign companies (or individuals) seeking an attorney in the United States;

*The names of the companies and individuals are legit — but the emails are sent from a gmail, yahoo or similar domain;

*The emails identify no referral source;

*They grammar be not well; and

*They promise lots of money for little work.

If you receive one of these emails, you’re better off just deleting it.

For information on another scam that is making its rounds, please review the attached important tutorial.


Wasted on the Way

“[Crosby and I]  were in love with each other and in possession of something magical.”  Graham Nash, 1990.

“I don’t want anything to do with Crosby at all . . .  I’m done.  F**k you.”   Graham Nash, March 2016.

I could tolerate last year’s war of words between David Crosby and Neil Young.  And sure, there has always been tension with that hothead (but genius) Stills.  But for Crosby Stills & Nash fans, a  Crosby/Nash rift is a surprising and devastating turn of events.   After 47 years together, having weathered drug addictions, prison stints and liver transplants, I, for one, was unprepared for the split.  So much for “Love the One You’re With.”

Lawyers can’t afford to be caught off guard when their clients break with one another.  Whether it’s a husband and wife,  business partners, or a corporation and its employee, we are often asked to represent multiple clients in a single matter.  At the outset of the representation, everyone is seemingly on the same page and happy.  As the matter evolves though, interests can diverge and once agreeable clients can descend into the darkness while the seemingly helpless lawyer watches.

So what do you do when one client wants copies of your communications with the other?  Or when one client stops paying?  Or when one wants you to fire the other and continue to represent him or her?   You don’t have to cry; these questions can be really easy to answer — if you have a fully executed engagement letter with appropriate disclosures and consents.  Specifically:

Everybody I Love You: Have the clients confirm that their interests are aligned.

50/50: Be clear on the responsibility for payment of fees.  Are they split evenly or is one paying for all?

Yours and Mine: Explain the disadvantages of joint representation, including that there is no privilege as between or among joint clients.  In other words, if we learn something from one client that we think the other needs to know, we will disclose the information to the other.

See The Changes: Be clear on what happens if a conflict develops.  Are we going to withdraw from the representation?  Or will we withdraw from representing one (e.g., a corporate officer), but continue representing the other (e.g., the company)?

Turn Back the Pages: Make sure the letter is executed by each of the clients.

This way, if and when your clients go CSN on you, you’ll be able to carry on.

And, for what it’s worth, anytime CSN are ready to get back together,  they can count me in.