Corporate Affiliate Conflicts of Interest - Louisville Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Earn Up to 6 hours CLE Credit! CLE Video & Audio Library The KBA allows attorneys to earn up to 6.0 hours of CLE credit per year by viewing or listening to any of the accredited self-study materials listed below. The LBA offers a library of DVDs and audio CDs for your convenience. Advanced registration is necessary to guarantee that the requested title is currently in stock. You may reserve your copy by phone, mail or fax. To request delivery or pick up, or to arrange for additional participants at one viewing, please call (502) 583-5314. DVDs 2.0 CLE Hours ($70 LBA Members; $140 Non-members) • Cultural Awareness as a Means to Resolution: Paying Attention to Culture in ADR** • Representing Litigants at Domestic Violence Hearings • Advanced Cross Examination • Systematic Statutory Interpretation • Sports Liability in the Context of Sovereign Immunity 2.0 CLE (Including 1.0 Ethics) Hours ($70 LBA Members; $140 Non-members) • To Sue or Not To Sue: Helpful Hints in Collecting More of Your Receivables** 2.0 CLE Ethics Hours ($70 LBA Members; $140 Non-members) • The Ethics of Law Firms & Office Sharing** • Professional Responsibility 2009 • Professionalism in the Bar, Impartiality on the Bench • Role of Judges In Establishing & Ensuring Professional Conduct • Courtroom Civility & Ethics • Selecting KY Judges: Merit Selection or the Ballot Box? • Obstreperosity: Is it “Takes one to know one” 3.0 CLE Hours ($105 LBA Members; $210 Non-members) • Winning Ugly: Preparing & Trying Your First Case Audio CDs 2.0 CLE Ethics Hours ($70 LBA Members; $140 Non-members) • Bottom Line: Fees, Billing & Collections, Ethical & Effective Billing Practices • Legal Malpractice Avoidance • Recent Developments in Legal Ethics 3.0 CLE Hours ($105 LBA Members; $210 Non-members) • Extraordinary Seminar for Extraordinary Event **Denotes New 2010 Addition to the CLE Library For a listing of available titles and rental policies visit the LBA website, www.loubar.org, scroll down the home page and click on the “CLE Video & Audio Tapes” link. Additional shipping & handling charges will be applied to orders to be shipped. Rentals are good for one week. • Real Estate Brown Bag Zoning Law Update Wednesday, November 3 The Real Estate section is pleased to welcome guest speaker Glenn Price from Frost Brown Todd as he presents an update on zoning law. More information will be added to the LBA website, www.loubar.org, as it becomes available. Speaker: Glenn A. Price, Frost Brown Todd Time: Place: Price: Credits: 10:45 a.m. — Registration 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. — Program & Lunch LBA, 600 W. Main Street $60 Members / $120 Non-Members Add $7 for lunch 2.0 CLE Hours — Pending Family Law Half-Day Mark your Calendar! Thursday, November 4 The Family Law Section is planning a halfday CLE program for November 4 at the Bar Center. More information will be added to the LBA website, www.loubar.org, as it becomes available. Time: Place: Price: Credits: 8:45 a.m. — Registration 9 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. — Program LBA, 600 W. Main Street $90 Members / $180 Non-Members 3.0 CLE Hours — Pending Looking for more CLE Programs? The seminars listed here were scheduled at the time of printing. For a full list of CLE programs and for complete details or to register, visit the LBA website at www.loubar.org or call the CLE Department at (502) 583-5314. • Section Leadership Positions Available for 2011! Want to become more involved in the Louisville Bar Association? Want to be more engaged in your practice area? We have several volunteer positions as either section chair or vice-chair available for the 2011 year. If you are interested in becoming more involved, contact Lisa Maddox Anspach at (502) 583-5314 or lmaddox@loubar.org. • Louisville Bar Association in Partnership with the American Constitution Society Legal Education — The Role of the Bench, the Bar and the Academy Thursday, November 4 Speakers will discuss the role that judges, bar associations and law schools play in meeting the needs of law school graduates in this demanding economy. Speakers include: Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals and Dennis Honabach, Dean of the Salmon P. Chase College of Law Time: 4:45 p.m. — Registration 5 p.m. – 6 p.m. — Program Place: LBA, 600 W. Main Street Price: $30 Members / $60 Non-Members Credits: 1.0 CLE Hour — Pending Solo/Small Firm Brown Bag Being Prepared: Dealing with Disability, Disaster, or Unexpected Events Wednesday, November 17 Formulate an action plan to protect your law practice, your clients and your family in the event of temporary disability, incapacity or unexpected events. Review state of the art thinking about checklists, questions, forms and agreements to put your plan in place. Speakers to be announced. Time: 10:45 a.m. — Registration 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. — Program & Lunch Place: LBA, 600 W. Main Street Price: $60 Members / $120 Non-Members Add $7 for lunch Credits: 2.0 CLE Hours — Pending Want to Become More Involved in the LBA? The LBA has a strong CLE program and relies heavily on its attorney members and others to volunteer their time to present programs. We are always looking for new and interesting topics and for speakers. There are many benefits to presenting a CLE for the LBA. Some of these benefits include: • exposure to the legal community as an “expert” in your field; • CLE credit for preparation and speaking time; • an opportunity to network with attorneys and others in the business community. We are also seeking attorneys who will to take on section leadership roles within the LBA. If you are not actively involved in the section(s) that apply to your area of practice, contact the chair or vice-chair of that section and see how to become more involved! For more information, or to volunteer, please contact Lisa Maddox Anspach at (502) 583-5314 or lmaddox@loubar.org. • 16 Louisville Bar Briefs www. loubar.org
Judges Online A Review of Ethics Opinions Concerning Judges’ Use of Social Networking Sites William E. Sharp On January 20, 2010, the Ethics Committee of the Kentucky Judiciary issued JE-119—an opinion addressing the propriety of judges’ use of social networking sites. The Committee specifically considered whether judges’ participation on such sites, coupled with the “friending” of lawyers or others likely to appear before them, violated Kentucky’s Judicial Cannons by creating either an appearance of impropriety, or the impression that the judge’s online friends are in a special position to influence the judge. In evaluating the nature of these online contacts, the Committee noted that one’s status as a friend in the context of social networking sites “does not, in and of itself, indicate the degree or intensity of a judge’s relationship” with the person. The Committee concluded that while these online connections are more public (and their online communications more permanent) than traditional social interactions, they are insufficient, by themselves, to require a judge’s recusal or to convey an appearance of special influence. However, the Committee indicated that because Cannon 3E(1) requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” the nature and quality of online communications with a lawyer, party or witness might necessitate recusal (or disclosure) in a particular case depending upon the circumstances. By contrast, Florida’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (JEAC) reached the opposite conclusion in November 2009 (Opinion 2009-20). Specifically, the JEAC found that a judge’s act of designating lawyers as friends on a social networking site (coupled with the communication of that status to others) “conveys or permits others to convey the impression that [those individuals] are in a special position to influence the judge.” Of particular importance to the committee’s conclusion was that: the judge must affirmatively select an individual to become an online friend; and that these online connections are then conveyed to third persons. According to the JEAC, the publication of these online attorney-judge connections, particularly to non-lawyers who are unfamiliar with the rules governing judicial conduct, conveys an impression that the lawyers are uniquely situated to influence the judge. In a follow-up opinion, the JEAC also considered inquiries from two Florida judges who proposed various methods designed to dispel any impression that the judges’ online friends possess any special influence (Opinion 2010- 06). Specifically, the judges suggested: 1. Posting an online disclaimer stating either that the online friends are mere “acquaintance[s]” and not friends “in the traditional sense,” or that one’s status as an online friend “in no way means that the person is in any position to influence [the judge’s] decision in any case”; 2. Adopting a policy of accepting all friend requests from known individuals (and from unknown persons who have friends in common with the judge) and clearly communicating this policy online; and, 3. Adopting a policy of accepting all friend requests from attorneys. The JEAC rejected the notion that these proposals, either alone or in combination, were sufficient to overcome the impression of special influence created by the attorneyjudge connections on social networking sites. In two related opinions, however, the JEAC did find it permissible for both judicial assistants (Opinion 2010-04) and candidates for judicial office (Opinion 2010-05) to participate on social networking sites, even if such participation involved having online friends that include attorneys who appear before the assistant’s supervising judge, or who would appear before the judicial candidate if elected. Other jurisdictions have also considered the issue and thus far, Kentucky’s approach seems to be in the majority. For example, New York’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics analogized judges’ participation on social networking sites (and the inclusion of attorneys as online friends) to that of simply socializing in a public setting (Opinion 08-176). The Committee cautioned, however, that the publicly viewable aspect of these online connections required careful consideration of whether the contact, either “alone or in combination with other facts,” would require disclosure or recusal. The Committee specifically noted that the presence of additional facts, e.g., an attorney’s increased access to the judge’s personal information, may contribute to the appearance of a stronger bond between the attorney and judge that might require recusal. Similarly, South Carolina’s Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct concluded in Opinion 17-2009 that a judge’s inclusion of law enforcement officers and court employees as friends on a social networking site did not, by itself, create an “appearance of impropriety.” Interestingly, the South Carolina Committee found that the publicly available nature of the judges’ online contacts would not convey an impression of special influence, but rather would promote public understanding by allowing the community “to see how the judge communicates” and by providing a “better understanding of the judge.” This conclusion seems at odds with Florida’s more protectionist (and arguably paternalistic) view. It must be noted, however, that even in those opinions allowing judges to participate on social networking sites, they all repeat a common admonition that judges must be mindful to ensure that their online activities comply with all applicable rules governing judicial conduct. For example, Kentucky’s Committee noted that the judge or justice engaging in these online activities “should be extremely cautious that such participation does not otherwise result in violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” To further highlight this point, the Committee described judges’ participation on such sites as “fraught with peril” and identified several potential online violations that could occur, including: posting of inappropriate pictures and/or commentary, engaging in ex parte communications and undertaking independent factual investigations. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Kentucky opinion, another potential ethical violation identified in the New York opinion is a judge’s posting links on a social networking page to third-party websites that contain inappropriate content. In short, the New York Advisory Committee’s observation that there is not “anything per se unethical” about judges participating on social networking sites with attorneys who appear before them is consistent with Kentucky’s approach. To the extent such online activities raise questions concerning a judge’s impartiality or the appearance of special influence, it appears that a fact-specific inquiry into the nature, quality and character of the online contacts (combined with any other relevant facts) will be necessary in order to determine whether notification and/ or recusal is appropriate. William E. Sharp is an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and chair of the LBA Government & Public Sector Section. • Tele: (502) 493-1394 Gary M. Weiss When it’s a question of persuasion... Gary Weiss has a passion to come to the right result. Listed in Best Lawyers in America; Personal Injury Legal Malpractice And now one of only eight Kentucky lawyers named for mediation/arbitration Mediation Principal Address Louisville One of few mediators who maintains an active practice so he knows the present value of cases E-mail: trialweiss1@yahoo.com has joined and will continue its focus on Emerging and Middle-Market Companies. Beyond Guidance. Results. Mergers and Acquisitions | Capital Raising | Business Valuation J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC | Member NYSE, FINRA & SIPC 500 W. Jefferson Street | Suite 700 | Louisville, KY 40202 | 502.588.8480 | 800.444.1854 | www.hilliard.com www. loubar.org October 2010 17
Page 1 and 2: October 2010 . Volume 10, No. 10 Co
Page 3 and 4: Bar Briefs is a monthly paper publi
Page 5 and 6: Book Review Secrets of the Kentucky
Page 7 and 8: Playing by Kentucky Rules Researchi
Page 9 and 10: Raindrops Keep Fallin ’ on My Hea
Page 11 and 12: Save the (pro bono) Week Since 1993
Page 13 and 14: one entity is a wholly owned subsid
Page 15: Federal Bar Association, Kentucky C
Page 19 and 20: LBA Voter’s Guide Jefferson Count
Page 21 and 22: LBA Voter’s Guide Jefferson Count
Page 23 and 24: Big Thanks!!! The need for supplies
Page 25 and 26: the declarant, of 75 percent of the
Page 27 and 28: www. loubar.org October 2010 27
Page 29 and 30: Section Meetings All meetings are h
Page 31 and 32: Albers Cohen Gadansky Patil Settles

Corporate Affiliate Conflicts of Interest - Louisville Bar Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?