|
sunEthics |
|
Professional Ethics Committee to discuss child support representation, plea offers and settlement offers conditioned on waivers, online marketing, and fee-sharing with suspended lawyers. [Added 1/31/12] The Florida Bar Professional Ethics Committee will meet in Orlando on Friday February 3 to address an agenda that includes the following topics: Representation of parents by state lawyers in Title IV-D child support matters. The Committee will consider comments received regarding Proposed Advisory Opinion (“PAO”) 11-1. PAO 11 was adopted in response to an inquiry from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office. By state law state Florida Department of Revenue ("DOR") is responsible for administering the Title IV-D child support program in Florida, and the state attorney's office represents DOR. In carrying out its duties, DOR may find itself seeking to enforce a child support obligation against a non-custodial parent and later seeking a reduction of the same support order on that non-custodial parent’s behalf. F.S. 409.2564(5) provides that “[a]n attorney-client relationship exists only between the department and the legal services providers in all Title IV-D cases.” Replacing withdrawn Florida Ethics Opinion 92-2, PAO 11 concludes that the DOR lawyer owes the parent none of the ethical obligations that are premised on the existence of a lawyer-client relationship, including the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality and that, accordingly, there are no ethical limitations on the lawyer’s representation of DOR in DOR’s providing services to a parent, regardless of a prior representation in which the services were provided to the other parent. Criminal plea offers conditioned on waivers of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The Committee will consider whether to adopt Proposed Advisory Opinion 12-1, which concludes that a criminal defense lawyer has a conflict of interest that prevents the lawyer from advising a client whether to accept a plea offer that requires the client to waive any past or future ineffective assistance claims. The opinion also concludes that, due to this conflict, it is impermissible for a prosecutor to make such a plea offer. Settlement offers conditioned on waivers of right to statutory attorney’s fees. The Committee will consider an appeal of a staff opinion addressing a situation in which opposing counsel made an offer specifying the amount of fees and costs that would be paid to the inquiring lawyer’s client as part of a settlement. The inquiring lawyer believed that the offer created a conflict of interest because the inquirer’s time and costs greatly exceeded the amount offered. Marketing legal services through an online service. The Committee will consider issues presented by an online service that matches prospective clients with lawyers who are interested in their cases. Lawyer working for a non-profit organization run by non-lawyers that provides immigration services. The Committee will consider an appeal of a staff opinion issued to a lawyer who asked about the ethical propriety of practicing law as an employee of a non-profit organization run by non-lawyers, where the organization provides immigration services to clients. The staff opinion concluded that the practice was impermissible. Sharing fees with suspended lawyer. The Committee will consider whether Florida Ethics Opinion 65-21 should be withdrawn or revised in light of Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 65 So.3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Santini suggests that a lawyer who withdrew from a contingent fee case before a recovery was obtained because the lawyer was suspended from practice is not entitled to a fee. |
|
sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law. Please read our disclaimers. Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX. © 2012 |