Changes to the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct Effective August 1
New and modified language related to fundraising for judicial candidates, whether incumbent judges or lawyers, reinforces the concept that judges cannot directly solicit funds and addresses a judge’s receipt of funds. Additional language clarifies the types of activities associated with noncampaign-related fundraising events in which judges ethically may participate. A modification of MRPC 8.2 cross-references language in the Code of Judicial Conduct applicable to lawyers who are judicial candidates. View a redlined version of the new language by visiting http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/MCJCorder2013.pdf. View a clean copy of the revised Code at http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/8MichiganCodeOfJudicialConduct.pdf
New Opinion Discusses Personal Injury Lawyer’s Charging for Basic Administrative Services
In RI-363, the Professional Ethics Committee determines that a personal injury lawyer’s proposal to charge clients for outsourced basic administrative services must be examined from the standpoint of whether such charges would be deemed “clearly excessive” under MRPC 1.5(a), taking into consideration MCR 8.121, and concludes that a lawyer’s treatment of the provision of basic administrative services as case costs chargeable to the client in a personal injury or wrongful death case in which the contingency fee agreement provides for the maximum permissible fee would be unethical.
New Opinion Addresses Lawyer’s Reference to Former Status as Judge
In RI-362, the Professional Ethics Committee discusses a lawyer’s reference to a past judicial opinion, including the years the position was held, in communications subject to scrutiny under the ethical rules.
New Opinion Addresses Lawyer Candidate for Judge Appearing in Opponent’s Court
In RI-361, which addresses the facts presented in JI-138 from the lawyer’s perspective, the Professional Ethics Committee has rescinded RI-52 and concluded that a lawyer who represents a client before the judge for whose bench the lawyer is an announced candidate must disclose that candidacy to the client. In order for the lawyer to continue to represent the client, the lawyer must determine whether his or her judicial candidacy triggers any obligations under the general conflicts of interest rule and, if so, proceeding accordingly.
New Judicial Ethics Opinion Discusses When a Candidate Appears Before the Judge Whose Bench is Sought
In JI-138, the Judicial Ethics Committee discusses a judge’s ethical obligations when a lawyer who is an announced candidate for the judge’s bench appears as an advocate before the judge. While the judge is not per se disqualified from presiding in the matter, so long as the judge ethically can discharge the duties required by the applicable Canons and finds no basis that requires disqualification. The judge should disclose to the parties the lawyer’s candidacy and proceed, unless a timely motion to disqualify is granted.
To read more about these issues, visit http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethicsopinions.cfm
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
