ACTEC COMMENTARIES ON THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
REPORTER'S NOTE
The following Commentaries build upon the substantial body of prior writings by numerous authors, including Luther Avery, Jackson Bruce, Gerald Johnston, Jeff Pennell and Ronald Link. Their contributions have enriched the literature and sharpened our sensibilities. While acknowledging their contributions, we hasten to add that they are in no way responsible for the organization or content of the Commentaries.
Basic Themes of Commentaries. The main themes of the Commentaries are: (1) the relative freedom that lawyers and clients have to write their own charter with respect to a representation in the trusts and estates field; (2) the generally nonadversarial nature of the trusts and estates practice; (3) the utility and propriety, in this area of law, of representing multiple clients, whose interests may differ but are not necessarily adversarial; and (4) the opportunity, with full disclosure, to moderate or eliminate many problems that might otherwise arise under the MRPC. The Commentaries additionally reflect the role that the trusts and estates lawyer has traditionally played as the lawyer for members of a family. In that role a trusts and estates lawyer frequently represents the fiduciary of a trust or estate and one or more of the beneficiaries. In drafting the Commentaries we have attempted to express views that are consistent with the spirit of the MRPC as evidenced in the following passage: "The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself." MRPC, Scope.
Scope of Representation. The Commentaries encourage a full discussion between lawyer and client of the scope and cost of the representation. Lawyers increasingly use engagement letters to cover these and other matters related to the representation. The trusts and estates practice is generally nonadversarial, client-centered and involves a high degree of client autonomy. The nature of the practice and the autonomy of clients allow lawyers and clients, including multiple clients, to define the scope and nature of the representation in ways that diminish the adverse effects that might otherwise flow from conflicts of interest. The Commentaries also note that while the representation of multiple clients by a single lawyer involves some risks, it often provides the clients with the most economical and effective representation--particularly where the clients are members of the same family. Finally, the Commentaries encourage lawyers to act in ways that promote the resolution of disputes without resort to the courts.
Duties of Trusts and Estates Lawyers Incompletely and Inconsistently Described. In large measure the duties of trusts and estates lawyers are defined in many states by opinions rendered in malpractice actions, which provide incomplete and insufficient guidance regarding the ethical duties of lawyers. Compounding the problem, the decisions in malpractice actions and the legal principles upon which they are based vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Courts have perhaps had the most difficulty in defining the role and duties of the lawyer who represents a fiduciary in the fiduciary's representative capacity with respect to a fiduciary estate (who might be said to represent the fiduciary generally). For example, in a malpractice action brought by the beneficiaries of a fiduciary estate against the lawyer for the fiduciary, a California appellate court stated that the lawyer owed no duty to the beneficiaries of the estate. Goldberg v. Frye, 266 Cal. Rptr. 483 (Cal. App. 1990); Other appellate courts have reached the opposite conclusion, including courts in California. Thus, in In re Estate of Halas, 512 N.E.2d 1276, 1280 (Ill. App. 1987), the court stated that, "The attorney for the executor, therefore, must act with due care and protect the interests of the beneficiaries". Similarly, in Charleson v. Hardesty, 839 P.2d 1303 (Nev. 1992), the court wrote that the lawyer for a personal representative owes the beneficiaries "a duty of care and fiduciary duties." Id. at 1307. See also Fickett v. Superior Court, 588 P.2d 988 (Ariz. App. 1976), in which the court held that the lawyer for the guardian owed a duty directly to the ward to protect the ward's interests.
Lawyer for Fiduciary. Under the majority view, a lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally with respect to a fiduciary estate stands in a lawyer-client relationship with the fiduciary and not with respect to the fiduciary estate or the beneficiaries. In this connection note that a distinction should be drawn between the duties of a lawyer who represents a fiduciary in the fiduciary's representative capacity (a "general" representation) and the duties of a lawyer who represents the fiduciary individually (i.e., not in a representative capacity). The distinction between the two types of representation is developed in the ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation). Unless otherwise indicated, all references in the Commentaries to "the lawyer for a fiduciary" are intended to be to a lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally and not to a lawyer who represents a fiduciary individually. Note also that under some circumstances a lawyer may properly represent the fiduciary and one or more of the beneficiaries. See ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule) and Example 1.7-3.
Duties to Beneficiaries. The lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally is not usually considered also to represent the beneficiaries. However, most courts have concluded that the lawyer owes some duties to them. Some courts subject the lawyer to the duties because the beneficiaries are characterized as the lawyer's "joint", "derivative" or "secondary" clients. Other courts do so because the lawyer stands in a fiduciary relationship with respect to the fiduciary, who, in turn, owes fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. The duties, commonly called "fiduciary duties", arise largely because of the nature of the representation and the relative positions of the lawyer, fiduciary, and beneficiaries. However, note that the existence and nature of the duties may be affected by the nature and extent of the representation that a lawyer provides to a fiduciary. Thus, a lawyer who represents a fiduciary individually regarding a fiduciary estate may owe few, if any, duties to the beneficiaries apart from the duties that the lawyer owes to other non-clients. See ACTEC Commentaries on MRPCs 1.2 (Scope of Representation) and 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others).
General Nature of Duties. Unfortunately, the duties that the lawyer for a fiduciary owes to the beneficiaries of the fiduciary estate have not been adequately identified, defined, or discussed. In general, the duties prohibit the lawyer from taking advantage of his or her position to the detriment of the fiduciary estate or its beneficiaries. Thus, the lawyer who represents a fiduciary is prohibited from making sales to, or purchases from, the fiduciary. In some jurisdictions the prohibition extends to transactions between the lawyer and the beneficiaries of the fiduciary estate. Indeed, in exceptional cases the lawyer for a fiduciary may be subject to the duties of the fiduciary. That approach was taken in a leading New York decision, In re Bond & Mortgage Guarantee Company, 103 N.E.2d 721 (N.Y. 1952). In that case the lawyers for a trustee for the holders of mortgage participation certificates were required to disgorge the increase in the value of certificates that the lawyers had purchased from third parties.
The attorneys, concededly in the same position as the trustee, owed an equally high degree of fidelity, and so both courts below held, the Appellate Division stating that, "by reason of their status as attorneys for the trustee, [they] were no less fiduciaries than was the trustee himself." . . . Thus the attorneys, like the trustees, owed to these certificate holders "the duty of the finest loyalty", "something stricter than the morals of the market place". 103 N.E.2d at 725.
Good Faith, Fairness and Impartiality. The lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally is required to act in good faith and with fairness toward the beneficiaries. In addition, the lawyer should advise the fiduciary to act impartially with respect to the beneficiaries and to provide the beneficiaries with information regarding material matters affecting their interests in the fiduciary estate. Consistent with the provisions of the MRPC, especially MRPC 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), the lawyer may not deliberately misinform or mislead the beneficiaries or withhold information from them. See ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation).
Affirmative Duties to Beneficiaries. The duties that the lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally owes to the beneficiaries are largely restrictive in nature (i.e., ones that impose limitations upon the conduct of the lawyer). However, in some circumstances the lawyer may owe some affirmative duties to the beneficiaries. Thus, the lawyer for a fiduciary may be required to take affirmative steps to protect the interests of the beneficiaries if the lawyer learns that the fiduciary is engaged in acts of self-dealing, is embezzling assets of the fiduciary estate, or is engaged in other wrongdoing. In some cases it may be appropriate for the lawyer to disclose the misconduct to the beneficiaries or to the court. If the local rules do not permit disclosure in such cases, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to resign with notice to the beneficiaries.
The existence of such affirmative duties is implicit in the nature of the representation, which involves the lawyer advising the fiduciary in a representative and not a personal capacity. Recognition of such duties is also supported by the fact that the fiduciary estate is almost invariably created by a testator or trustor for the exclusive benefit of the beneficiaries. In addition, the fiduciary and the lawyer are both compensated by the fiduciary estate. Finally, recognition of some affirmative duties is also appropriate because the lawyer for a fiduciary is typically in a superior position relative to the beneficiaries, who may repose trust and confidence in the lawyer.
Throughout the Commentaries, when the word "may" is used in referring to a lawyer's duties, obligations and authorizations to disclose, the intent is to indicate that the duties, obligations and authorizations may exist in some jurisdictions but not in others.
Annotations. The Annotations that follow each Commentary include references to a broad sampling of the cases, ethics opinions and articles that deal with the professional responsibility of the trust and estates lawyer but are by no means exhaustive. Reflecting various approaches taken in different jurisdictions, the cases and ethics opinions are often inconsistent and cannot be harmonized. The summaries of the cases and ethics opinions are not part of the Commentaries. They are included for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the judgment of the reporter or ACTEC regarding the issues involved.
October 1993
John R. Price,
Professor of Law,
University of Washington, ReporterBruce S. Ross,
Chair, ACTEC Professional Standards Committee
(1990-1994)
REPORTER'S NOTE
Second Edition"The existing ethics codes merely espouse certain general principles that apply to all lawyers, such as you don't co-mingle a client's funds with your own. They do not provide enough fact specific provisions that apply directly to many of the various legal specialties." Judge Stanley Sporkin, The Need for Separate Codes of Professional Conduct for the Various Specialties, 7 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 149 (1993).
Judge Sporkin focuses on the principal problem posed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC): It is composed largely of general, litigation-based rules that do not address many of the difficult problems that arise in specific areas of practice. Rather than recognize the need to consider ways in which the MRPC might be adapted to meet the needs of lawyers in specific practice areas, the American Bar Association appears to insist that one rule fits all--without regard to any differences in the nature of a client and the type of representation provided. The ABA's position is illustrated by ABA Formal Opinion 94-380 (1994), which held that Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) prohibited the lawyer for a fiduciary from disclosing fraudulent or criminal conduct on the part of the fiduciary. According to the ABA, Rule 1.6 overrides the other duties of the lawyer: "The client's status [as fiduciary] is irrelevant."
Anticipating and Avoiding Conflicts. This edition of the ACTEC Commentaries continues to emphasize the advantages to clients and lawyers of anticipating and attempting to avoid potential problems under the MRPC. Estate planners not infrequently encounter difficult problems of professional responsibility, particularly ones involving confidentiality and conflicts of interest. Serious problems can often be reduced or eliminated by advance discussion and planning. In particular, in many instances uncertainties regarding the lawyer's duty of confidentiality can be eliminated with sufficient advance planning and consent. Disclosure and agreement may also allow the same lawyer to represent the interests of multiple parties who have somewhat conflicting interests, but not clients whose interests are seriously adverse, such as adverse parties in litigation.
Other Sources of Guidance. A special committee of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the American Bar Association chaired by Malcolm Moore has produced thoughtful and helpful Reports on three topics: Comments and Recommendations on the Lawyer's Duties in Representing Husband and Wife; Preparation of Wills and Trusts that Name Drafting Lawyer as Fiduciary; and Counseling the Fiduciary. These Reports and the initial edition of the ACTEC Commentaries are published in the winter 1994 issue of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, Volume 28, Number 4. In addition, the American Law Institute is working on the Restatement, Law Governing Lawyers, portions of which have appeared in draft form. We hope the Restatement will, in its final form, provide useful specific guidance both to estates and trusts lawyers and to lawyers in other fields of law.
This edition of the ACTEC Commentaries also includes additional annotations including several malpractice decisions, some of which hold that the lawyer for a fiduciary owes no duties in tort or contract to the beneficiaries of the fiduciary estate. Included in the latter category are Spinner v. Nutt, 631 N.E.2d 542 (Mass. 1994) and Trask v. Butler, 872 P.2d 1080 (Wash. 1994).
Since their adoption the ACTEC Commentaries have provided guidance to individual lawyers and law firms and have been used in instructional programs at law schools and in programs of continuing legal education. In addition, some portions have been proposed for adoption in various states. This edition represents a continuing effort to refine and improve the content of the ACTEC Commentaries for the benefit of the bar, bench and public.
The original edition of the ACTEC Commentaries was prepared with the capable assistance of Berrie Martinis, a member of the class of 1994 at the University of Washington School of Law. This edition was prepared with the equally capable assistance of Catherine Baytion, a member of the class of 1995 at the University of Washington School of Law. Sincere thanks to them both and to the librarians at the University of Washington whose dedication to professionalism and public service is legendary.
March 1995
John R. Price,
Professor of Law,
University of Washington,
ReporterJ. Michael Farley,
Chair, ACTEC Professional
Standards Committee
(1994-1997)Bruce S. Ross, Chair, ACTEC Commentaries
Update Subcommittee
REPORTER'S NOTE
Third Edition
This Edition of the ACTEC Commentaries, following by six years the original publication of the Commentaries and four years after publication of the Second Edition, builds incrementally upon the prior Editions. The ACTEC Commentaries continue to receive widespread acceptance and increasing citation by the courts, secondary authorities and members of the legal profession.
The most significant changes in this Edition include new Commentaries discussing MRPC 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation) and MRPC 3.7 (Lawyer as Witness). Also, this Edition includes a Table of Authorities (broken down by state). As with the Second Edition, the Annotations have been greatly expanded and continue to expand to reflect new decisions, ethics opinions and the like.
A Note re Ethics 2000: The American Bar Association Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, popularly known as "Ethics 2000," under the chairmanship of Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey, is in the midst of an intensive analysis and reevaluation of all of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and will be proposing extensive revisions and modifications of the MRPC. Much of the Commission's work product, although in draft form only, is now available online at its website, http://www.abanet.org/ethics2k. If the Commission's final work product is adopted by the American Bar Association, significant changes to such key Rules as 1.4 (Communication), 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), and 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions) may be anticipated, and some new Rules may come into existence. Preliminary suggestions and recommendations for changes in the MRPC endorsed by the Commission suggest a positive response to the long-stated concerns of ACTEC and the ABA's Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section that the present MRPC do not adequately address concerns specific to different specialties in the profession, including the estates and trusts area. The next edition of the ACTEC Commentaries will include appropriate references to and the text of those Rules relevant to the estates and trusts practice that are modified or newly adopted by the ABA following submission of the Ethics 2000 Commission's final report and recommendations.
This Third Edition reflects ACTEC's continuing commitment to refine and improve the contents of the ACTEC Commentaries and to maintain their relevance to the bench, the bar and the general public which all courts and lawyers serve.
June 1999
Bruce S. Ross,
Reporter for the Third EditionJack G. Charney,
Chair, ACTEC
Professional Standards
Committee (1997-2000)
The Preamble, Scope and Terminology applicable to the MRPC provide some helpful guidance regarding the content, meaning, and application of the Rules. The following excerpts are particularly relevant:
Excerpts from Preamble As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. . . . As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealing with others. As intermediary between clients, a lawyer seeks to reconcile their divergent interests as an advisor and, to a limited extent, as a spokesperson for each client. A lawyer acts as evaluator by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.
* * * * * * * * * In the nature of law practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are encountered. Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between an interest in remaining an upright person while earning a satisfactory living. The Rules of Professional Conduct prescribe terms for resolving such conflicts. Within the framework of these Rules, many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules.
Excerpt from Scope The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself. Some of the Rules are imperatives, cast in the terms of "shall" or "shall not". These define proper conduct for the purposes of professional discipline. Others, generally cast in the term "may," are permissive and define areas under the Rules in which the lawyer has professional discretion. No disciplinary action should be taken when the lawyer chooses not to act or acts within the bounds of such discretion. . . . Many of the Comments use the term "should." Comments do not add obligations to the Rules but provide guidance for practicing in compliance with the Rules.
* * * * * * * * * Violation of a Rule should not give rise to a cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability.
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Forty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the MRPC, often with significant modifications. In addition, two states (New York and Oregon) have amended their version of the Model Code to reflect certain Model Rules provisions. One state, California, did not originally base its Rules of Professional Conduct on the Model Code and declined to base the 1989 revision of its Rules on the MRPC. Selected Statutes, Rules and Standards on the Legal Profession, 138 (Dzienkowski Ed. 1993). The following jurisdictions have adopted amended forms of the MRPC with the effective dates shown, ABA, Lawyer's Manual on Professional Conduct 01:3 (BNA 1994):
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
WyomingJanuary 1, 1991
July 15, 1993
February 1, 1985
January 1, 1986
January 1, 1993
October 1, 1986
October 1, 1985
January 1, 1991
January 1, 1987
January 1, 1995
November 1, 1986
August 1, 1990
January 1, 1987
March 1, 1988
January 1, 1990
January 1, 1987
January 1, 1987
January 1, 1998
October 1, 1988
September 1, 1985
July 1, 1987
January 1, 1986
July 1, 1985
March 28, 1986
February 1, 1986
September 10, 1984
January 1, 1987
October 7, 1985
January 1, 1988
July 1, 1988
April 1, 1988
November 15, 1988
September 1, 1990
July 1, 1988
January 1, 1990
January 1, 1988
January 1, 2000
September 1, 1985
January 1, 1989
January 1, 1988
January 12, 1987BOOKS
ABA, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct (3d ed. 1996)
ABA, BNA Lawyer's Manual on Professional Conduct (multivolume, looseleaf)
American Law Institute, Restatement, Law Governing Lawyers (Various Tentative and Proposed Final Drafts)
S. Gillers, Regulation of Lawyers; Problems of Law and Ethics (3d ed. 1992)
G. C. Hazard & W. W. Hodes, The Law of Lawyering (2 vols. looseleaf) (2d ed. 1990)
C. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics (1986) (hornbook series)
ARTICLES
ABA, Probate and Trust Subcouncil Responds to Kutak Commission, 9 Prob. & Prop. 6 (1981)
ABA, Special Probate and Trust Division Study Committee on Professional Responsibility,
Comments and Recommendations on the Lawyer's Duties in Representing Husband and Wife, 28 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 765 (1994)
Preparation of Wills and Trusts that Name Drafting Lawyer as Fiduciary, 28 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 803 (1994)
Counseling the Fiduciary, 28 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 825 (1994)
Allen, Power to Contractually Appoint "Attorney for the Estate", a Non-Existent Right of a Decedent, 21 J. Legal Prof. 145 (1997)
Andersen, Informed Decisionmaking in an Office Practice, 28 B.C. L. Rev. 225 (1987)
Avery, The Rules of Professional Conduct For Lawyers Are Confusing, 131 Tr. & Est. 8 (April 1992)
Bennett, A Fiduciary Lawyer's Duty to the Fiduciary and Its Beneficiaries: A Rhyme and a Reason for Every Season, Seminar D, ACTEC Annual Meeting (Mar. 1996)
Bowman, Lawyer Liability to Non-Clients, 97 Dickinson L. Rev. 267 (1993)
Brown & Brown, What Counsels the Counselor? The Code of Professional Responsibility's Ethical Considerations--A Preventive Law Approach, 10 Val. U. L. Rev. 453 (1976)
Collett, And the Two Shall Become as One . . . Until the Lawyers Are Done, 7 Notre Dame J. Law, Ethics & Pub. Pol. 101 (1993)
Corneel, Estate Planners: Where do your Loyalties Lie? (2 Parts) 116 Tr. & Est. 356, 382 (May, June 1977)
Dolgin, The Morality of Choice: Estate Planning and the Client Who Chooses Not to Chose, 22 Seattle U.L.Rev. 31 (1998)
Donaldson, The Ethical Considerations of Representing the Elderly, 130 Tr. & Est. 18 (July 1991)
Dzienkowski, Lawyers as Intermediaries: The Representation of Multiple Clients in the Modern Legal Profession, 1992 U. Ill. L. Rev. 741
Gibbs, Avoiding Malpractice Suits: Some Sound Advice, 129 Tr. & Est. 12 (April 1990)
Hazard, Conflict of Interest in Estate Planning for Husband and Wife, 20 The Probate Lawyer 15 (the ACTEC Annual Joseph Trachtman Lecture, 1994)
Hazard, Triangular Lawyer Relationships: An Exploratory Analysis, 1 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 15 (1987)
Johns, Ficket's Thicket: The Lawyer's Expanding Fiduciary and Ethical Boundaries When Serving Older Americans of Moderate Wealth, 32 Wake Forest L. Rev. 445 (1997)
Johnston, Avoiding Malpractice Liability in the Estate Planning Context, 43 U.S.C. Major Tax Plan. 17 (1991)
Johnston, An Ethical Analysis of Common Estate Planning Practices--Is Good Business Bad Ethics?, 45 Ohio St. L.J. 57 (1984)
Kruse, "My Basement is Filled with Pornography," 12 NAELA Quarterly 33 (Winter 1999)
Link, et al., Developments Regarding the Professional Responsibility of the Estate Planning Lawyer: The Effect of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 22 Real Prop., Prob. & Trust J. 1 (1987)
Link, et al., Developments Regarding the Professional Responsibility of the Estate Administration Lawyer: The Effect of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 26 Real Prop., Prob. & Trust J. 1 (1991)
Pennell, Professional Responsibility: Reforms are Needed to Accommodate Estate Planning and Family Counselling, U. Miami, 25th Inst. Est. Plan., Ch. 18 (1991)
Price, Professional Responsibility in Estate Planning: Progress or Paralysis? U. Miami, 21st Inst. Est. Plan., Ch. 18 (1987)
Price, Ethics in Action Not Ethics Inaction: The ACTEC Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, U. Miami, 29th Inst. Est. Plan., Ch. 7 (1995)
Rogers, Avoiding Malpractice Claims in Planning and Administration, Estate Planning 359 (Nov/Dec, 1995)
Rosenfeld, Whose Decision is it Anyway?: Identifying the Medicaid Planning Client, 6 Elder Law Journal 383 (1998)
Ross, How to Do Right by Not Doing Wrong: Legal Malpractice and Ethical Considerations in Estate Planning and Administration, U. Miami, 28th Inst. Est. Plan., Ch 8 (1994)
Ross, Legal Malpractice in Estate Planning and Administration, 18 ACTEC Notes 248 (Spring 1993)
Russell and Bicks, Joint Representation of Spouses in Estate Planning: The Saga of Advisory Opinion 95-4, Fla.Bar J 39 (March 1998)
Schwartz, Whose Wealth is it Anyway? Impediments to the Realization of an Owner's Plan of Disposition, 25 Ariz. L. Rev. 671 (1983)
Symposium, Ethical Issues in Representing Older Clients, 62 Fordham L. Rev. No. 5 (March, 1994), selected articles:
Collett, The Ethics of Intergenerational Representation, 1453;
Crosby & Leff, Ethical Considerations in Medicaid Estate Planning: An Analysis of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 1503;
Pennell, Representations Involving Fiduciary Entities: Who is the Client?, 1319;
Powell & Link, The Sense of A Client: Confidentiality Issues in Representing the Elderly, 1197;
Spurgeon & Ciccarello, The Lawyer in Other Fiduciary Roles: Policy and Ethical Considerations, 1357
Trembley, On Persuasion: Lawyer Decision Making and the Questionably Competent Client, 1987 Utah L. Rev. 515 (1987)
Wade, When Can a Lawyer Represent Both a Husband and Wife in Estate Planning, 1 Prob. & Prop. 16 (March/April 1987)
Wade, Current Developments in Ethical Problems Faced by Estate Planners, UCLA-CEB, Estate Planning 1992, 95-128
Public Home Page |
Private Home Page
Whats New |
Resources |
Membership |
College Information
