Thirty-five Changes to Rules of Professional Conduct Approved

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) January 14, 2010 -- Alan M. Insul, a Los-Angeles-based lawyer, weighs in on the prudent action recently taken.

Since 2000, the Rules Revision Commission of the State Bar Board of Governors has been working on the 35 revisions to the California Rules of Professional Conduct on issues ranging from lawyers as third-party neutrals and fees to communication with a represented person and competence.

“This approval is a first step towards finalizing a much needed process,” said Alan M. Insul, a Los Angeles-area lawyer who limits his practice to the areas of corporate, business, and real estate, “The result of the Rules Revision Commission’s work is something every California lawyer will need to review and address in their practice. ”
At its November 2009 meeting, the Board of Governors approved rule revisions that:

• Require an attorney serving as a third-party neutral to explain the difference between an advocate and third-party neutral to someone unlikely to be aware of the distinction (Rule 2.4)
• Retain California’s current standard prohibiting, for disciplinary purposes, an “unconscionable fee.” The commission had been considering adopting the ABA’s standard that prohibits an “unreasonable fee.” (Rule 1.5)

• Follow the ABA Model Rule that expands ex parte communication to include all represented “persons.” The current rule applies only to a represented “party.” (Rule 4.2)
• State that a lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly; fail to perform legal services with competence. The rule defines “competence” in any legal service as applying the diligence, learning, skill, and mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service (Rule 1.1)

But a few areas of potential change were not immediately addressed. Proposed rules dealing with sex with a client, and conflicts of interest, were referred back to the commission for further work. Proposed rules on reporting the egregious behavior of another attorney and business transactions and adverse interests were tabled until the January 2010 meeting for further discussion.