Local Counsel Has Ethical Obligations

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has approved the imposition of an informal admonition in a case in which the attorney disclaimed ethical obligations as local counsel to an out-of-state attorney.

The court rejected that suggestion, noting findings below

The [Hearing] Committee concluded that respondent had entered into an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Carter when he professionally accepted responsibility for Mr. Carter’s case by authorizing his signature and use of his bar number on the complaint. Comparing respondent’s participation in Mr. Carter’s case to that of local counsel in a case in which an attorney has been admitted pro hac vice, the Committee concluded that respondent assumed the responsibilities imposed by the Rules…

Because of respondent’s lack of disciplinary record, his good faith in trusting [counsel] Mr. Chasnoff to re-activate his bar membership and assume the responsibility of the case, the limited effect of respondent’s conduct on Mr. Carter’s case, and respondent’s reputation and professionalism, the Committee recommended that respondent be sanctioned with an informal admonition.

The court’s view

Relying on the premise that he never entered into a representation agreement with the client, respondent has consistently asserted that no attorney-client relationship existed between them. We, therefore, begin our analysis of the question from a broader historic context. Members of the bar who practice law serve a variety of roles and have a range of professional responsibilities. Lawyers have duties and obligations to their clients, D.C. R. Prof’l Conduct 1, ethical responsibilities to other lawyers, D.C. R. Prof’l Conduct 3.4, and, historically, a fiduciary relationship to the court, by which they are licensed to practice law…

 Here, the Board considered substantial evidence to conclude that respondent formed an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Carter. It is critical that respondent authorized the filing of Mr. Carter’s complaint with his signature and bar number and later initiated and filed an additional pleading in which he identified himself as Mr. Carter’s attorney. As an officer and fiduciary, respondent represented to the court, through his filings, that an attorney-client relationship existed. Moreover, respondent was aware that he was the only counsel of record in Mr. Carter’s case who was licensed to practice law in the District; respondent knew that Mr. Chasnoff’s bar membership was inactive.

The court found that the most lenient available sanction was the appropriate one. It rejected a variety of due process claims by the attorney including an allegation of gross delay in the proceedings.

If you check the Bar Docket Number, you will note that the case only took thirteen years to resolve by informal admonition.

Delay? What delay? (Mike Frisch)