At risk of this blog turning into a Wisconsin Lawyer repository (as original-to-the-bog content has been…well, mostly missing), I present for your consideration “Ethics Song ‘89,” my latest contribution to the State Bar journal.
All in Wisconsin
At risk of this blog turning into a Wisconsin Lawyer repository (as original-to-the-bog content has been…well, mostly missing), I present for your consideration “Ethics Song ‘89,” my latest contribution to the State Bar journal.
My latest column, “The Story of Stuff,” is out in the latest Wisconsin Lawyer magazine.
It’s a little less snarky than usual, but I still got to reference George Carlin, mainframe punch cards, and the entropy-in-action that is my desk.
Check out my debut as an ethics columnist in the Wisconsin Lawyer. I’ll be writing in every other issue, and the editor is letting me snark there too. I’m just not allowed to write about politics, though I was able to sneak in a Kanye 2020 reference.
I am a bit late to report this, but in June 2023, the State Bar of Wisconsin Ethics Committee (on which I sit) released Formal Opinion EF-23-01, “Responding to Online Criticism.” In most cases, the Committee’s recommendation is “don’t.”
Effective today, Wisconsin trust account rules have sort-of caught up with the rest of the country, and finally acknowledge that electronic transactions really aren’t that scary.
Under the Rules applicable from 2016 to yesterday (which the Wisconsin Lawyer optimistically described as “modernizing” the way these things are handled), if lawyers wanted to accept electronic transactions (including credit cards) for advanced fees, they either had to set up a separate “e-banking trust account” or, if they wanted to use a primary trust account for electronic transactions (which has been described as an “all-in-one” trust account) comply with some additional security and insurance needs.
Hi, students I may have met or who may have stumbled upon this through other means. I’m happy to answer questions—I respond well to a social media “subpoena” even though I know I don’t have to and probably shouldn’t. Here are 10 of the answers I’ve given over the years when law student and new graduates have asked about what I didn’t know in law school but should have.
Recently, a viral Twitter conversation asked participants born before 1990 about their first online purchase. I’m really not sure—was it a book from the early days of Amazon? Some long-forgotten kitchen gadget? I know I was long out of college, but this was still when “e-commerce” was something distinct from just buying stuff. Even though it quickly became apparent that online shopping was secure, quick, and soon to be inevitable, it took awhile for people’s habits and risk tolerance to catch up with the technology.
State lawyer regulatory authorities are similar—at any given time, the Rules of Professional Conduct reflect the state of the world from years ago. (Don’t believe me? Take a look at the advertising rules and tell me they reflect how people do business in 2022.) It takes time for the rules to catch up.
Late last week, I wrote about the case of Nathan DeLadurantey, who received a public reprimand for offensive personality involving harassment of a subordinate lawyer.
A reader alerted me to the fact that the decision (which I linked to) appeared to be gone from the Supreme Court Website, and, in fact it is. I checked the court website and learned that as of July 2, the Court withdrew the opinion and will issue a revised one “in due course.” While I have seen courts reconsider or clarify opinions (and they can do so sua sponte) I’ve never seen one withdrawn and removed from the website.
t’s been a busy few weeks for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin—like its federal counterpart, it releases a flurry of opinions before it quiets down for the summer (though unlike its federal counterpart, the Wisconsin Court does not have “Terms”). Although I do have an elections and political law practice, and there were a few opinions on which I have Thoughts, this blog isn’t about that, so I won’t be talking about those kinds of opinions unless there is a professional responsibility overlap.
Today, though, an interesting disciplinary opinion came out.* I am recounting it here not for its subject matter, which is a bit salacious and therefore will likely be the focus of other coverage, but for the overall direction of the process and the opinion.
Unless you’re immersed in the Wisconsin legal world (and aren’t we all?) you may not know that Wisconsin does not permanently disbar lawyers. “Revocation” is the most serious penalty our Rules allow, but no matter how egregious the conduct leading to revocation, the attorney can petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement after five years.
A few days ago, a link to this piece in the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Inside Track caught my eye—“Senior Lawyers: Are We Really Ruining The Profession?” The piece purported to be responding to “Dear Senior Lawyers—You’re Ruining the Profession,” an entry on a law blog out of Queensland, Australia.
A year ago, my colleagues and I sat around the conference table, trying to parse what health authorities were saying and what it might mean for law practice generally and our work specifically. We discussed what would happen if people needed to quarantine, and whether we should make sure everyone was set up to receive email remotely, or what might happen in a worst-case scenario, if we had to shut down for a few weeks.
We all procrastinate. Even you—yes you, with your wall calendar and your daily planner in your briefcase and your Outlook calendar synched to your phone and Siri shouting reminders at you weeks, days, hours, and minutes before each important deadline. It’s part of the human condition, and not dependent on time management skills. Most of us know how to manage our time; we just don’t follow through. Lawyers do it for more than an hour a day.
Typically, courts redo their Web sites and it’s not for the best. They don’t display right on a mobile device and I end up not being able to find anything regardless of where I am. But credit where it’s due.