Ethics 的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则

Ethics 的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则 (Effective 2/1/07)

自2007年2月1日起，D.C. 上诉法院修改了D.C. 这是自1月1日《澳博app下载网》生效以来最全面的一次修订, 1991. Although the vast majority of opinions issued by the D.C. 在修订后的规则生效日期之前的澳博app职业道德委员会(“委员会”)基本上不受修订的影响, there are some that simply no longer provide complete guidance in light of the recent changes. 这很关键, 因此, 任何从委员会意见中寻求指导的人都应特别注意自该意见发表以来《澳博app下载网》或《澳博app下载网》在相关方面发生变化的可能性. Some of the changes are “non-substantive,” such as the renumbering of a Rule section or a Comment. 在这种情况下, 委员会的意见仍然有效, even though a particular citation to a Rule or a Comment may no longer be consistent with the current version. The Committee urges anyone consulting an opinion to read it in light of the revised 规则 and Comments. 在下表中, 委员会确定了这些意见, 在它的判断中, 受到经修订的《澳博app下载网》的实质影响:

的意见s Substantively Affected by the Amended 规则 (Effective 2/1/07)
的意见	相关的变化
意见211: Fee Agreements; Mandatory Arbitration Clauses	D.C. 规则1.已修订第8(g)(2)款，以澄清澳博app可就渎职行为提出索赔或可能提出索赔的条件. 评注[13]现在解释说，该规则并不禁止澳博app与委托人就法律事故索赔达成强制仲裁协议, and there is no requirement that the client have separate counsel before such an agreement is permissible.
意见212在代表前客户的澳博app离开澳博app事务所后，澳博app事务所在重大相关事项中对前客户不利的代理	D.C. 规则1.第10(c)条现在允许澳博app事务所代表一个人，他的利益直接与以前与澳博app事务所有联系的澳博app所代表的客户的利益相反, so long as none of the remaining lawyers has any information protected by D.C. 规则1.那是重要的.
意见217: Multiple Representation; Intermediation	D.C. 规则2.2已被淘汰, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. 规则1.7.
意见218: Retainer Agreement Providing for Mandatory Arbitration of Fee Disputes Is Not Unethical	注释[1]to D.C. 规则1.第8条现在解释说(a)款的要求不适用于委托人和澳博app之间的一般费用安排, 是由D.C. 规则1.5. 此外，对D .的评论[13].C. 规则1.解析:选D.C. 规则1.8 generally permits lawyers to enter into agreements to arbitrate any legal malpractice claim.
意见219:道德义务冲突	D.C. 规则1.6(d)现在允许其服务被用于推动犯罪或欺诈的澳博app在某些情况下透露客户的机密和秘密，以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户犯罪或欺诈造成的伤害. Because a lawyer is now permitted to make certain disclosures under D.C. 规则1.6、D项下的披露义务.C. 规则4.1(b)和3.3(d) – both of which are expressly made subject to the obligations under D.C. 规则1.6 -现在可能更广泛.
意见232:多客户/刑事事务	D.C. 规则1.第7(c)条已被修订，以要求每个可能受影响的客户对第(b)条禁止的代理提供知情同意，并且澳博app有理由相信澳博app能够为每个受影响的客户提供称职和勤勉的代理.
意见238:书面费用协议	D.C. 规则1.第5(b)条已被修订，要求书面收费协议不仅要说明收费的基础或费率，还要说明澳博app代理的范围和客户将负责的费用.
意见243:离婚案件的共同代理	D.C. 规则2.2已被淘汰, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. 规则1.7.
意见253: Referral Fee Arrangement Between Law Firms and Insurance Companies	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 结果是, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, the discussion about the relationship between the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers in D.C. 规则5.4和D .的规定.C. 规则7.1(b)(5) that had permitted lawyers to pay referral fees to intermediaries under certain conditions.
意见264: Refunds of Special Retainers; Commingling of Such Funds with the General Funds of the Law Firm Upon Receipt	D.C. 规则1.15(d) has been revised significantly since this opinion was issued. 最特别的是，D.C. 规则1.15(d) now provides that advances of unearned fees and unincurred costs shall be treated as property 客户端的. The opinion’s contrary determination was based on a prior version of D.C. 规则1.15(d).[1]
意见273: Ethical Considerations of Lawyers Moving from One Private Law Firm to Another	D.C. 规则1.第10条(c)款现在允许澳博app事务所代表与前客户的利益严重不利的人，在与前关联澳博app代表客户的事务相同或实质性相关的事务中，而其余澳博app都没有任何受D保护的信息.C. 规则1.那是重要的. The opinion’s contrary conclusion was based on the prior version of D.C. 规则1.10(c).
意见275收到保密信息会妨碍其他客户在同一或实质性相关事项上的后续代理，除非可以竖起屏障	D.C. 规则1.10(a) no longer contains the potential-client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. 这个例外现在包含在一个新的规则中，D.C. 规则1.18(d).
意见279: Availability of Screening as Cure for Imputed Disqualification	D.C. 规则1.10(a) no longer contains the potential client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. 这个例外现在包含在一个新的规则中，D.C. 规则1.18(d).
意见286:临时转介费	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 该意见中关于《澳博app下载网》如何标志着背离先前的道德法并授权为介绍法律业务向他人支付某些费用的讨论已不再适用.
意见294: 退休澳博app出售澳博app业务	D.C. 规则1.第17条是新的，并管辖法律业务的销售. 该规则(连同评注[10])授权出售澳博app业务，只要该出售不是通过向转让客户收取的费用增加来融资，并且转让澳博app与客户之间关于费用和工作范围的现有安排得到了购买澳博app的遵守.
意见296: 共同声明:信息保密	D.C. 规则2.2已被删除，注释[14]-[18]改为D.C. 规则1.7 have been added to address special considerations in common representation. 此外,维.C. 规则1.6(d)现在允许其服务被用于推动犯罪或欺诈的澳博app在某些情况下透露客户的机密和秘密，以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户犯罪或欺诈造成的伤害.
意见299: Duty of Confidentiality to the Corporate Client That Has Ceased Operations	D.C. 规则1.6(d)现在允许其服务被用于推动犯罪或欺诈的澳博app在某些情况下透露客户的机密和秘密，以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户犯罪或欺诈造成的伤害.
意见302: Soliciting Plaintiffs for Class Action Lawsuits or Obtaining Legal Work Through Internet-Based Web Pages	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 结果是, 意见的一部分不再适用-特别是关于澳博app在支付费用参加基于网络的招标服务以满足D的条件时必须采取的步骤的讨论.C. 规则7.1(b)(5).
意见306: Practicing Law While Simultaneously Selling Insurance	D.C. 规则5.7是新的. 它规定，澳博app在提供可能与提供法律服务相结合并与之有关的合理服务时，应遵守《澳博app下载网》. 这一观点与D一致.C. 规则5.7, but it relied only on Comment [25] (now renumbered [36]) to D.C. 规则1.7 for the conclusion that a lawyer may sell insurance products to clients so long as the lawyer makes full disclosure, 获得同意, and concludes that his or her professional judgment on behalf 客户端的 will not be adversely affected.
意见307: Participation in Government Program Requiring Payment of Percentage of Fee	D.C. 规则7.1(b)(5)已被淘汰. 结果是, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, 关于澳博app为满足D项条件而付费参加政府运营的法律服务计划时必须采取的步骤的讨论.C. 规则7.1(b)(5).
意见311: Choice-of-Law 规则 for Professional Conduct in Non-Judicial Proceedings	D.C. 规则8.5(b)(1)现在更广泛地适用于与“法庭未决事项”有关的行为，而不仅仅是与“澳博app被允许执业的法庭程序”有关的行为.”
意见329: 非营利组织 Organization Fee Arrangement with an Attorney to Whom It Refers Matters	D.C. 规则5.4(a)(5) now provides that a lawyer may share legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, 保留, 或根据《澳博app下载网》第501(c)(3)条规定免税的澳博app的推荐雇佣. 该意见要求只允许补偿非营利组织的自付费用，而不提供所收取费用的一部分，鉴于D.C. 规则5.4(a)(5) now expressly authorizes the sharing of legal fees under these circumstances.

[1]1996年第264号意见发表时，D.C. 规则1.15(d) provided that “[a]dvances of legal fees and costs become the property of the lawyer upon receipt. 根据规则1的规定，在澳博app服务终止时，任何未赚到的预付费用必须退还给委托人.16(d).D.C. 上诉法院修正D.C. 规则1.15(d), 1月1日生效, 2000, 澄清一下, “[a]未赚取的费用和未发生的费用的垫款在赚取或发生之前，应按照第(a)款视为客户的财产，除非客户同意另一种安排.尽管D。.C. Court of Appeals also made some minor modifications to D.C. 规则1.15(d) in the most recent amendments that became effective on February 1, 2007, the earlier amendments to the rule are the ones directly relevant to 意见264.