ethical issues of case management unit 8 seminar ©2007 thomson delmar learning. all rights reserved

Ethical Issues of Case Management

Unit 8 Seminar

©2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.©2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Written Assignment – Unit 8

Using Lexis, find one recent court decision involving an alleged attorney conflict of interest. Summarize the case in a paragraph or two, and be certain to explain the issue in the case and the court's holding.

The easiest way to do this assignment is to prepare a case brief, using IRAC format. Remember to include a correct Bluebook format citation to the case.

Unit 8 Seminar


Final Exam Essays

Your Final Exam Essays are due next week as part of your Final Exam. You may begin working on them this week.

Complete the following essay questions.1) The image of a law firm is very important. What are some of

the ways a law firm can present a good image to potential clients? Describe the techniques in detail and give your evaluation of the techniques.

2) The law office manager is an important member of law office management. Describe the duties of a typical law office manager in a middle-sized law office. Do you feel that an office manager has an essential role in a law office? What characteristics would you look for in seeking an office manager?

Unit 8 Seminar


Calendaring, Docket Control, and

Case Management

Chapter 7

Practical Law Office Management, 3rd Edition, Thomson Delmar Learning


5 ©2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.©2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Definitions• Calendaring - a generic term used to describe

the recording of appointments for any type of business.

• Docket control - a law-office-specific term that refers to entering, organizing, and controlling all the appointments, deadlines, and due dates for a legal organization.

• Case management - a law-office-specific term, that always includes more than just tracking dates; it usually includes things to do, contacts, case notes, document assembly, document management, and more.


Common Docket Control Entries

• Expiration dates for statutes of limitations• Judgment renewal dates• Employee-benefit annual filings• Renewal dates for copyrights, trademarks, and patents• Renewal dates for leases and licenses• Renewal dates for insurance coverage• Trial court appearance dates• Due dates for trial court briefs• Due dates on various pleadings: answers; depositions;

replies to interrogatories and requests for admissions; various motions and notices, and so forth



• Due dates in probate proceedings, such as inventory and appraisal dates

• Appearances in bankruptcy proceedings• Action dates in commercial law matters• Due dates in corporate or security matters• Closing dates for real estate transactions• Due dates for appellate briefs and arguments• Tax return due dates• Due dates in estate matters, such as tax return dates,

valuation dates, and hearing dates• Dates of stockholder meetings• Dates of board of directors meetings• Review dates for wills• Review dates for buy and sell valuations of business

interests



• Review dates for trusts• Renewal dates for leases on offices• Renewal dates for attorney licenses• Expiration dates on notary certificates• Renewal dates for malpractice and other insurance• Personal property tax return dates• Dates for partners’ (and other recurring and

nonrecurring) meetings• Review dates for billings and accounts receivable• Review dates for works-in-process• Review dates for evaluation of associates and staff• Review dates for raises and bonuses• Quarterly payroll withholding reports due


Docket Control – Ethical Considerations

Adequate Preparation and Competence• Model Rule 1.1 - A lawyer shall provide

competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Diligence• Model Rule 1.3 - A lawyer shall act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.



Rule 1.4 Communication• (a) A lawyer shall:• (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance

with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;

• (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;

• (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

• (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

• (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

• (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.



Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients• (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a

client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

• (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

• (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

• (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

• (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

• (2) the representation is not prohibited by law;• (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one

client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

• (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.


Manual Docket Control

• Calendars– Page-a-Day– Wall Calendars

• Card Systems


Computerized Docket Control/Case Management Features

• Perpetual calendars• Recurring entries• Data calculator• Scheduling conflict alert• Scheduling multiple parties• Automatic reminders• Calendaring using events from a rule• Case contacts


Computerized Docket Control/Case Management Features

• Synchronizing with PIMs/PDAs• Case diary/notes• Document assembly/generation• Legal research library• Conflict of interest• E-mail interface• Document management• Time and billing/accounting interface


Law Office Docket Control Approaches

• Centralized• Decentralized• Combined


Discussion Cases

People v. Smith, 74 P3d 566 (2003)

OVERVIEW: The attorney was hired to handle a husband's divorce. Although the attorney initially gave the matter his attention, he then allowed his paralegal to take substantial responsibility for the case. The attorney failed to review the paralegal's work, resulting in the matter being dismissed and the paralegal engaging in the unauthorized practice of law when she tried to refile the divorce. The paralegal's actions also resulted in the client's wife filing a divorce proceeding in another state. The court suspended the attorney's license, holding that: (1) because the attorney had measures in place to give reasonable assurance that the paralegal's conduct was compatible with the obligations of a lawyer, there was no violation of Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 5.3(a); (2) the attorney failed to properly supervise his paralegal, in violation of Rule 5.3(b); (3) the attorney's failure to himself confirm the status of the divorce constituted neglect under Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3; (4) the attorney's failure to keep his client informed violated Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4; and (5) the failure of the attorney to acknowledge his wrongdoing required a nine rather than a six-month suspension.

OUTCOME: The court imposed a nine-month suspension of the attorney's license and required the attorney to pay the costs of the proceeding.


Discussion CasesIn re Riva, 722 A2d 933 (N.J. 1999)

OVERVIEW: Respondent attorney was found guilty of gross neglect and lack of diligence. Respondent's misconduct arose from his failure to file a timely answer to a complaint against his clients and his subsequent failure to act with necessary diligence to vacate a default. Respondent also failed to communicate with his clients in a timely manner and misrepresented the status of the matter. The Disciplinary Review Board recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. Respondent did not deny the essential facts but asserted that his conduct resulted from a misunderstanding that his adversary had withdrawn the complaint and his failure to receive notice of the proposed default judgment. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that respondent engaged in the cited misconduct but, because his conduct was an isolated instance of aberrant behavior, mitigating factors warranted a public reprimand rather than suspension or disbarment.

OUTCOME: The appellate court agreed with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board that respondent attorney be publicly reprimanded for gross neglect and a lack of diligence because mitigating factors justified the imposition of a less severe sanction than disbarment or suspension even though respondent committed serious attorney misconduct.

ethical issues of case management unit 8 seminar ©2007 thomson delmar learning. all rights reserved

Documents