The Utah Bar Journal has been receiving and publishing word of lawyers who do pro bono work at various clinics, and that work is commendable indeed. Not published in these lists, however, are the names of those who do their alms in secret. Recently I was blessed by someone from the latter group.
While at an OSC hearing for a Water Quality Act violator I had prosecuted, the defendant had a physical meltdown. Having run out of money and lost his original attorney, he literally collapsed outside the court at the thought of going to the hearing. Luckily, a hero was present.
Local attorney Shelden Carter stepped in and represented the defendant. We quickly worked out a resolution. Little acts like this, routinely done, form thousands of points of light that brighten our profession. Shelden’s example for us all shows that he is truly a great American.
Paul Wake
The Bar Commission’s recent petition to increase licensing fees deserves scrutiny, particularly in comparison to other Utah licensing fees. Professional licensing fees administered by the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (which licenses and regulates over 80 professions, including all the medical professions) range from approximately 25% to 50% of the proposed bar licensing fees. Does it really cost that much more to license and regulate attorneys?
DOPL fees are subject to the Utah Budgetary Procedures Act. Bar fees are not. DOPL fees cover licensing and regulation only. Bar fees include mandatory association membership fees, requiring all Bar licensees to pay for extras including the Bar Journal and lobbying efforts. It is time for a fresh evaluation of the core licensing and regulatory functions Bar licensees should be required to pay.
Sincerely,
Thad LeVar
The January-February Utah Bar Journal included an article by Meb Anderson, a member of the Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee, urging lawyers to seek ethical guidance from the EAOC when in doubt on an ethical issue. The EAOC Opinion 07-02 had concluded that “If a mature minor independently and voluntarily attempts to obtain a second opinion or independent representation from an uninvolved attorney, that attorney does not violate Rule 4.2 [“a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer.”] Yet the same issue of the Bar Journal includes notice in the Attorney Discipline section, authored by the Office of Professional Conduct, in a case involving Rule 4.2 and Opinion 07-02 that the EAOC opinions are “advisory, and the presumption that an attorney who follows an opinion has not violated a Rule is rebuttable and inconclusive.”
This apparently inconsistent result between the OPC and the EAOC has engendered confusion and no small amount of consternation by many members of the Bar. Why should the Bar even have an EAOC whose opinions cannot be relied upon and are disregarded by the OPC?
Gary Sackett, former Chair of the EAOC has submitted an article for publication in the next issue of the Utah Bar Journal discussing and analyzing the disciplinary note that has prompted this difficulty, and explaining why OPC’s admonition to Bar members not to rely on EAOC opinions was unnecessary. For the benefit of Bar members, this issue needs to be resolved.
Maxwell A. Miller
Chair EAOC