Significance of Decision
This is yet another case where a court has held that attorneys are absolutely immune from liability to non-client third-parties for conduct which occurred within the scope of their representation.
The availability of electronic databases makes it easy for a court or opposing counsel to identify unattributed sources and argue that the lawyer who drafted the brief attempted to deliberately deceive the court. And while copying source material without attribution in litigation filings is not per se a violation of a lawyers ethical obligations, many courts disapprove of extensive copying in briefs. (New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2018-3).
The departure of a lawyer from a firm often creates a highly-charged, emotional atmosphere which can make it difficult for those involved to appropriately consider their responsibilities to the clients and to each other. ABA Formal Opinion 489, released in December 2019 by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, contains the latest ABA direction regarding ethical obligations during this difficult time.
Promptness and thoroughness are twin policies underpinning this rule. Unfortunately, many lawyers, in their quest for strict adherence or simply as a matter of convenience, fall into the bad habit of copying clients on email communications to opposing counsel and third parties. This raises a number of ethical issues.
When obtaining signatures from clients on fee agreements or engagement letters, an attorney must not overlook the necessity of signing the document themselves. In a recent case, the Texas Court of Appeals refused to enforce an arbitration agreement where the clients had signed the fee agreement, but the law firm had not.