Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl Recent documents in John Sahl en-us Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:49:27 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/31 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/31 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:29:59 PDT There is significant risk today that lawyers will become the target of a disciplinary or legal malpractice action, especially given the complexity of the law and advances in technology that reduce the amount of time that lawyers have to reflect about client matters. This risk is heightened by the increased competition in the bar to deliver legal services in a cost-effective manner, the sophistication of clients who expect competent, efficient and reasonably priced services, and the litigious nature of consumers. The risk is further exacerbated by the ever changing methods and rules for electronic communication and the storage of information. The magnitude of the risk is underscored by the prediction that law school graduates "will be the subject of three or more claims of legal malpractice before finishing a career." This article examines some good practice standards that minimize the risk that a lawyer will become the target of a legal malpractice or disciplinary action. These standards should also reduce the risk of a lawyer becoming the object of a disqualification or Rule 11 motion. This article discusses these standards in the entertainment law context but they also apply to a variety of practice areas. Jack P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/30 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/30 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:25:44 PDT Lawyers today increasingly change jobs, suggesting to some that lawyer movement is becoming the norm. For example, one study reported that an average of 15 out of 100 associates annually depart a law firm. Today's mobility is in stark contrast to a half-century ago when lawyers might reasonably expect to remain with the same firm for their entire careers. Occupational movement in the legal profession is likely to continue for several reasons. First, many law students graduate with substantial educational debt. As a result, some graduates accept jobs that are not their "real" first choice but that pay well with the intent of moving soon to better jobs. They know that few, if any, adverse consequences will follow. Second, lateral job movement for some experienced lawyers is an effective way to improve income and other working conditions. Finally, lawyer movement or dislocation also occurs when law firms develop new specialties, clients, and economic efficiencies. Although law firm departures are common, a lawyer's decision to leave a firm is generally neither easy nor risk free. Departing lawyers may be sued by their clients and old firms and professionally disciplined if they injure persons or entities while making their career moves. This article discusses some of the ethical obligations that departing lawyers have under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. It also offers some practical suggestions for how departing lawyers and their firms may avoid becoming the target of a legal malpractice or discipline action. John Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/29 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/29 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:07:36 PST John P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/28 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/28 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:01:08 PST John P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/27 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/27 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:30:46 PST John P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/26 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/26 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:25:29 PST John P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/25 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/25 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:18:32 PST John P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/24 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/24 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:13:17 PST John P. Sahl Professional Responsibility http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/23 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/23 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:54:35 PST Office of Water Research and Technology, Department of Interior. John P. Sahl Groundwater Rights http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/22 http://works.bepress.com/john_sahl/22 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:09:43 PST Vermont's law for the allocation of percolating ground water, the absolute ownership doctrine, is inconsistent with well-established principles of groundwater movement. The doctrine essentially provides a landowner with unrestricted ownership and use of all groundwater accessible beneath the confines of his property. Under this rule, a landowner can intentionally deprive his neighbor of water without fear of liability. This was poignantly illustrated in the recent Vermont Supreme Court case of Drinkwine v. State."The appellants, Harvey and Helen Drinkwine, owned property near the Salisbury Fish Hatchery, owned and operated by the respondent, State of Vermont. The Drinkwines used their property for farming purposes. The Drinkwine spring, their only source of water, was situated approximately 2,700 feet east of the fish hatchery. The spring had supplied all the water requirements of the Drinkwine's farm for over fifty years. In 1969, the state drilled and developed wells at the fish hatchery which pumped large quantities of water. Shortly after the state increased the frequency of operation of their pumps, the Drinkwine spring ceased flowing.To prevent the permanent loss of their water supply, the Drinkwines argued for a change in Vermont's groundwater law which would apportion a reasonable share of groundwater for their needs and sought injunctive relief to restrain the operation of the state's pumps and wells. The lower court, basing its decision on the absolute ownership rule, summarily dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal and stated the basic issue to be whether the court "should . . . modify the doctrine of absolute ownership of percolating waters in the light of changed environmental conditions?'' Despite acknowledging this issue, the court nevertheless, relying on precedent, refused to recognize the Drinkwine's claim and affirmed the lower court's dismissal. In addition, the court reaffirmed the traditional rule of Vermont which recognizes not only an absolute right in the ownership of percolating groundwater, but also implicitly sanctions its waste and malicious diversion. John P. Sahl Groundwater Rights