When The Injured Worker Calls- Ethical Implications

/by

I get calls at least once a month from represented injured workers who don’t know what is going on with their claims. Stop and think about that in light of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Typically, in violation of existing rules, the AA has not communicated with the client. Sometimes the attorney has given the client false information. Recently an IW told me his lawyer said there was no such thing as mediation for workers’ compensation cases.

Many of these IW’s are reaching out directly to the employer’s counsel to try to resolve their issues. This puts the employer’s counsel in a difficult ethical position. New Rules 4.2 (represented person) and 4.3 (unrepresented person) lay out the restrictions on defense counsel for that communication.

Frustrated injured workers who want to resolve their claims are seeking information on the internet. That’s how they get to me.

I am not an advocate for anyone; I am a professional neutral. I have always made that role clear to callers. New Rule 2.4 requires mediators to inform unrepresented parties of the mediator’s neutrality. All I can do is assure the workers that I am available to mediate and to talk to their lawyers or adjusters about starting the process.

If you get a call from someone who wants to mediate, don’t brush off that inquiry. There is no charge to talk to me about whether mediation is right for your case. I’ll give you the information you need.

New Rules Of Professional Conduct For California Lawyers

/by
                                                 New Considerations in Settlement and Case Management 

The California Supreme Court has approved new rules of professional conduct for attorneys licensed in California which go into effect November 1, 2018. These rules generally expand the existing settlement ethics rules. Violation of the rules can lead to a range of disciplinary actions, including disbarment. Here are the ones which affect people trying to settle a case.

Client Communication
Prior Rule 3-500 in a single sentence required lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about significant developments. New Rule 1.4 is more detailed. Now there’s a two-way street: the lawyer must reasonably consult with the client about how to achieve the client’s goals. What’s more, the lawyer must also inform the client about what the lawyer cannot legally or ethically do even if it’s what the client expects.

Prior Rule 3-510 required lawyers to promptly communicate the specifics of a written settlement offer. A California lawyer need only pass along a spoken settlement offer if the lawyer deems the offer significant. New Rule 1.4.1 preserves this distinction.

In evaluating settlement offers or making other decisions about the representation, the Comment to new Rule 2.1 clarifies that a lawyer can initiate advice to a client on relevant, non-legal issues, such as moral, economic, social and political factors.

Diligence
Prior Rule 3-110 defined “competence” as including diligence. Now a separate Rule 1.3 prohibits a lawyer from “intentionally, repeatedly, recklessly or with gross negligence” failing to act with reasonable diligence.

New Rule 3.2 says “a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to delay or prolong the proceeding or to cause needless expense.” Now an ethical rule may apply to needless court appearances and continuances and improperly postponed treatment.

Truthfulness
New Rule 4.1 prohibits lawyers from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person, i.e., someone who is not a client, such as an opposing party or witness. A lawyer cannot knowingly incorporate or affirm the truth of someone else’s false statement. A nondisclosure is the equivalent of a lie if the lawyer makes a partially true but misleading material statement or omission. On the other hand, the Comment to the Rule clarifies that there is no affirmative duty to inform an opponent of relevant facts. Representations about case value are not statements of fact or law.California Business and Professions Code sec. 6068(d) requires lawyers to represent clients with methods which are “consistent with truth.” A lawyer who intentionally deceives the court or any party can be charged with a misdemeanor. This statute remains in effect.Everybody Who Acts For the Firm
Prior Rule 3-110 included within the duty of competence a duty to properly supervise lawyers and non-attorneys or agents. New rules 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 expand on that and provide for vicarious liability for a breach. A subordinate lawyer has an independent duty to follow the rules, but is not responsible for following instructions when there is an arguable question of professional duty.