ABSTRACT: A New Hampshire attorney who is a Partner in their firm cannot sell their practice or firm to an Associate if they are not retiring from the practice of the law in the State of New
ABSTRACT: Representing a client in a matter funded in whole or in part through donation-based crowdfunding is not unethical per se. Lawyers are encouraged to exercise substantial caution when undertaking a crowdfunded matter, however, as ethical concerns
Under Rule 3.5, a New Hampshire lawyer may review a juror’s public social media presence online but may not contact the juror and must avoid any notification that the juror’s social media platform has been accessed by the lawyer. While a lawyer must exercise care, a review of a juror’s social media presence may be ethically required in providing competent representation under Rule 1.1.
When a lawyer receives information from a prospective client which is materially adverse to the interests of the lawyer’s current client, is the lawyer authorized to reveal any information regarding the prospective client to his/her current client, and/or is the lawyer required to withdraw from representing the current client?
Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion #2018-19/01 by the NHBA Ethics Committee. This opinion was submitted for publication to the NHBA Board of Governors at its May 6, 2019 meeting.
This opinion was submitted for publication to the NHBA Board of Governors at its March 3, 2016 meeting.
May a lawyer ethically offer discounted legal services through a “group coupon” or “daily deal” service?
The Rules of Professional Conduct do not forbid use of social media to investigate a non-party witness. However, the lawyer must follow the same rules which would apply in other contexts, including the rules which impose duties of truthfulness, fairness, and respect for the rights of third parties. The lawyer must take care to understand both the value and the risk of using social media sites, as their ease of access on the internet is accompanied by a risk of unintended or misleading communications with the witness. The Committee notes a split of authority on the issue of whether a lawyer may send a social media request which discloses the lawyer’s name – but not the lawyer’s identity and role in pending litigation – to a witness who might not recognize the name and who might otherwise deny the request. The Committee finds that such a request is improper because it omits material information. The likely purpose is to deceive the witness into accepting the request and providing information which the witness would not provide if the full identity and role of the lawyer were known.
A New Hampshire lawyer who uses cloud computing must be certain that such use complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct, including, Rule 1.8(c), 1.0(e), 1.1, 1.6, 1.15, 2.1, and 5.3.
May a New Hampshire attorney outsource litigation support services, such as document review, to a company located overseas, on a temporary or an ongoing basis? Must that attorney notify the client of the use of these services?