Search

Recent years have witnessed growing concern internationally in the topic of wellbeing and mental health across the legal community, an interest reflected in the emergence of a multitude of research studies, policy initiatives, guidelines, networks and reports (e.g. International Bar Association 2021; LawCare 2021). Within recent studies of lawyer wellbeing there has been a growing call to change the culture of law in order to create mentally healthy workplaces. Yet all too often it is unclear what culture change might involve within specific workplace contexts. This paper presents a socio-legal critique of the law's ‘wellbeing turn' and interrogates the underlying conceptualisation and politics of wellbeing in these debates. Following Soon et al. (2023) it suggests there has been insufficient nuanced consideration of the contextual influences that have shaped the wellbeing dynamic law within discrete workplace contexts. It explores how a distinctive kind of ‘wellbeing problem' has emerged across different areas of the law and, grounding the law's turn to wellbeing in a wider social, economic and political context, brings to light questions and concerns about wellbeing, professional identity and commitment relating to ‘life in the law’ in the social justice sector all too often side-stepped in debates about lawyer wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article recounts the development of the Idaho State Bar up until the 1930s, highlighting the challenges and milestones in its early years, including the formation of the Bar and its first meetings. Topics include the creation of the first statewide bar association in 1899, the eventual transition to a mandatory bar in 1923, and recurring discussions on legal reforms such as juvenile delinquency and minimum fee schedules.

The report "International ∙ The Future Is Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession" is an abridged version of a joint initiative by the International Bar Association (IBA) and the Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP). It addresses the impact of AI on the legal profession, ethical issues, and the role of lawyers in developing AI governance rules. The report highlights the challenges and opportunities AI presents to law firms, the regulatory landscape, best practices for bar associations, and the importance of AI governance in upholding the rule of law. The IBA aims to provide guidance and resources to help law firms navigate the integration of AI effectively while maintaining ethical standards and promoting international collaboration. [Extracted from the article]

This article proposes to analyze the digital legal marketing mechanisms used by law firms in Montes Claros/MG as a strategy for publicizing legal activity, through provision no. 205/2021 of the OAB - Brazilian Bar Association. This approach brings together a connection structure between the legal activity and society, enabling a new perspective on the legal activity based on the aforementioned provision. In relation to empirical research, this can be characterized as exploratory and descriptive and was developed with 15 interviewees representing 7 offices. In view of the analyses, the empirical research showed that all interviewees considered the inclusion of digital marketing important and necessary, in addition to the traditional one that was already used, although only three interviewees reported not using digital marketing but rather traditional marketing such as word of mouth. word of mouth (customer referral). The analyzes led to the conclusion that traditional marketing has been gradually supplanted by digital legal marketing. The study pointed out that, although not all interviewees make use of digital legal marketing, there was a consensus regarding the importance and need for these practices to publicize legal activity in Montes Claros/MG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This articles examines the 2024 update to the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. It focuses on the importance of fairness and independence in arbitration, and how these updates aim to help parties, arbitrators, counsel and institutions manage these issues. The updates adjust and clarify the General Rules and the Red, Orange and Green Lists, especially regarding arbitrator disclosures, third-party funding, experts, non-lawyer arbitrators and social media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under American Bar Association ("ABA") Model Rule 8.4(g), it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct related to the practice of law that the lawyer knows, or reasonably should know, is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. Widespread concerns over the breadth and lack of clarity concerning the rule have triggered substantial criticism, including the refusal of multiple states to adopt this model rule. Instead, several states have responded by introducing alternative versions of Model Rule 8.4(g) or by applying older rules of professional conduct in the case of discriminatory speech or harassing conduct on the part of lawyers. This Article discusses the ongoing dialogue between the states and the ABA concerning the kind of form a rule regulating discrimination and harassment within the profession should take. The Article highlights some of the complex issues involved through an examination of several high-profile cases involving controversial speech on the part of lawyers and in light of the ABA's longstanding goals of promoting greater clarity and uniformity concerning the rules of professional conduct. It also examines the potential for some of these state alternatives to provide rule makers with greater insight into the benefits and potential drawbacks of relying upon Rule 8.4(g) or other legal ethics rules designed to deal with the issue of discrimination in the legal profession. Ultimately, the Article concludes that the values of clarity and uniformity should give way to the values of innovation and experimentation at the state level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The duty of confidentiality has been a cornerstone of the attorney-client relationship for more than four centuries. Historically, this duty was not difficult to discharge. All a lawyer had to do to comply was not affirmatively share client information in public without consent. But that has all changed. The same technologies that provide unprecedented benefits of authorized access by lawyers and their clients create unprecedented risks of unauthorized access by others. As a result, although the duty of confidentiality was once synonymous with a duty to keep client confidences secret, today the duty necessitates that lawyers keep client confidences secure as well. This critical shift did not go entirely unnoticed by the legal profession. In 2012, the American Bar Association adopted Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c) which requires lawyers to “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to,” client confidences. This new rule had good intentions and was eventually adopted in some form by every state bar. Yet it has proven ineffective at protecting clients and difficult, if not impossible, to execute for lawyers. Worse, in the more than a decade since its adoption there has not been a single published disciplinary action for violating this duty in the digital context. Not one. After telling the story of the legal profession’s adoption of a duty of data security and the shortcomings with the current approach to that duty, this Article seeks to outline its next chapter. Specifically, it argues that the lawyer’s duty of data security should not focus exclusively on the regulation of technological safeguards to prevent breaches and should focus instead on regulating the processes that lawyers must take to mitigate harm from potential breaches and the people that lawyers must consult when making data security decisions. This approach draws inspiration not only from professional responsibility scholarship but also from data security best practices from outside the legal profession that can help guide lawyers, protect clients, and incentivize enforcement by state bars despite constant technological innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Bar Association ("ABA") unenthusiastically recognized advance waivers of future conflicts for the first time in a 1993 formal opinion. These allow lawyers to take on prospective clients whose interests will be adverse to current clients at some point in the future. They also sidestep the ethics rule requirement of obtaining true informed consent from a client to waive a conflict of interest because, at the time of signing, the conflict is not yet ripe. After a full-court press by its own Business Law Section Ad Hoc Committee during the Ethics 2000 Commission's review of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the ABA repealed its limited approval in favor of a broader acceptance of advance waivers in 2005. After all, advance waivers mean lawyers and law firms can grow profits by not having to turn down clients with conflicting interests. The intended consequences of such waivers are to allow larger law firms to keep as much business as possible, while also permitting large and sophisticated clients an unfettered choice of legal representation. They also come with some unintended consequences: keeping large clients condensed in a small number of large firms, thereby creating industry oligopolies where diversity among partners is staggeringly low; increasing the opportunity to exercise confirmation bias in Big Law; and placing the burden on courts to police these agreements in what has proven to be a disorderly fashion. This Article asserts that advance waivers of conflicts should be carefully scrutinized and perhaps disallowed because they exist primarily to permit Mega Big Law firms to monopolize business and crowd out competition. The use of advance waivers by industry lawyers may also have a dampening effect on diversity efforts by increasing confirmation bias, and can prevent smaller and mid-sized law firms from establishing additional areas of expertise. Inconsistent opinions by courts across the country and the lack of guidance from ethics policymakers make crafting reliable rules about drafting enforceable advance waivers nearly impossible. Instead, Mega Big Law firms could simply seek informed consent from sophisticated clients at the time a potential conflict arises, but not before. Delaying informed consent to the point at which there is a conflict could satisfy increasingly chaotic courts, as well as allow policymakers to show the rules of professional conduct apply to all law firms regardless of size or wealth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Culturally Proficient Lawyering is an important guide for legal educators who are employing cultural proficiency course objectives in accordance with new American Bar Association ("ABA") accreditation Standard 303(c). The recently adopted Standard 303(c) requires that law schools educate students about "bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism." This Article is among the first to propose a comprehensive curricular framework that supports Standard 303(c) outcomes and objectives. It includes an important resource for law professors with a sample exercise and a rubric tool that will aid in assessing students' culturally proficient lawyering awareness, knowledge, and skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: After the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE), the need for disaster case management (DCM) was highlighted through the efforts of the Sendai Bar Association, which investigated the situation of survivors. This paper provides an overview of DCM in Japan since the GEJE, including key findings from investigations and legal consultations conducted by the Sendai Bar Association and the first author, who took part in the surveys with survivors in Ishinomaki City, clarifying the large number of homebound survivors and their needs. Design/methodology/approach: In recent years there has been growing attention to the importance of DCM for supporting life and housing recovery of disaster survivors. Along with the expansion of DCM activities over several decades in Japan, the need for DCM was increasingly recognized after the 2011 GEJE and tsunami, especially for home-based survivors left out of government-provided disaster recovery support programs. As one-on-one advice to support individual recovery needs, the focus of DCM in Japan is legal advice to help survivors effectively navigate support policies. Findings: Since the GEJE, there has been growing support for DCM in Japan, including from practitioners, scholars, and regional and national governments. However, although DCM can be an effective way to support housing recovery, even 12 years after the GEJE, there are still survivors in need of additional support. Originality/value: Drawing on a detailed case study and action research of the first author, this paper contributes to the still limited international literature on DCM in Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Direito e Práxis is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article announces Idaho State Bar (ISB) members that have been admitted to the bar in 1974 which include lawyers Stephen M. Ayers, James A. Bevis, and Stephen C. Brown.

Copyright of Revista Foco (Interdisciplinary Studies Journal) is the property of Revista Foco and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article highlights key events and updates from the Idaho State Bar in 2024, including the passage of three resolutions that will be submitted to the Idaho Supreme Court. Topics include the call for additional panel members for the Lawyer Referral Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' special sitting in Idaho Falls, and the planning and discussions surrounding the resolutions.