Proposed FEO

View the Proposed Ethics Opinion in Full Here A proposed ethics opinion entitled “Negotiating Private Employment with Opposing Counsel” was proposed on April 21, 2016.  The proposed opinion discussed the issue of whether or not a lawyer may negotiate for employment with a law firm that represents a party on the opposite side of the matter in which the lawyer’s firm is also representing a party.   In short, the answer is yes, with client consent. The opinion referenced Rule 1.7(b)(2) [...]

View the Proposed Ethics Opinion in Full Here A proposed ethics opinion entitled “Duty of Defense Counsel Appointed after Defendant Files Pro Se Motion for Appropriate Relief” was proposed at the quarterly meeting on April 21, 2016.   The proposed opinion considers whether defense counsel must filed an amended Motion for Appropriate Relief or inform the court, if in defense counsel’s informed and reasonable legal opinion the pro se MAR is frivolous or cites law that is no longer valid. [...]

View the Proposed Ethics Opinion in Full Here A proposed ethics opinion entitled “Contesting Opposing Counsel’s Fee Request to Industrial Commission” was proposed on January 21, 2016.  The proposed opinion considers whether a defense lawyer for an employer and a workers’ compensation insurance carrier can contest the fee request of plaintiffs counsel with a meritorious basis and standing. The inquiry that led to the proposed opinion stated that the lawyer sought a twenty-five percent [...]

View the Proposed Ethics Opinion in Full Here The North Carolina State Bar ruled in a proposed opinion at it’s October 2015 quarterly meeting that non-equity firm lawyers may be held out to the public as “partners.”  More specifically, the Bar ruled that lawyers who do not own equity in a law firm may be held out by any appropriate designation, including partner, so long as such designation is legitimate, not misleading in violation of Rule 7.1, and the lawyer complies with [...]

View the Proposed Ethics Opinion in Full Here. The NC Bar received inquiries about representing individual spouse on certain matters, when the lawyer has previously represented both spouses jointly in other legal matters.  As the opinion mentions, there are many areas of law in which a lawyer can, and often does, represent spouses jointly—preparation of reciprocal wills, closing on the purchase of the martial home, or creation of a corporation for a family-owned business.  Thus, the [...]

View the Proposed Ethics Opinion in Full Here Editor’s Note: At its meeting on July 17, 2015, the Ethics Committee voted to withdraw this opinion without substitution in light of recently adopted legislation that resolves the issue of professional responsibility raised in the proposed opinion. Proposed Ethics Opinion 2014 FEO 11, republished at the NC Bar’s April meeting, rules that a Department of Social Services (DSS) attorney must follow legal notice requirements when filing a [...]

 View proposed ethics opinion in full here This alternative to 2013 Formal Ethics Opinion 14 would restrict a lawyer completely from representing both the lender and borrower in a commercial real estate closing.  This opinion takes the proposition that there are no instances in which common representation can be consented to in this type of transaction.  Citing again to Rule 1.7, the opinion explains that common representation in a commercial real estate closing involves a concurrent [...]

The ethics of representing both the trustee and the secured creditor in a contested foreclosure proceeding. [...]

How to maintain client confidentiality within the context of mentor-mentee relationships. [...]

This Proposed Opinion was adopted at the January 2014 State Bar Quarterly Meeting. [...]

A lawyer generally may not represent both the borrower and the lender in a commercial real estate closing, even with consent. [...]

This Proposed Opinion was adopted at the January 2014 State Bar Quarterly Meeting. [...]

Absent client consent or applicability of one of the Rule 1.6(b) exceptions, a client's lawyer is not permitted to disclose settlement information to the client's previous attorney. [...]