From the mentees ... Tiombe Carter

Below is the first in a series of blog posts from the mentees of NYCLA's mentoring program. Our first post is from Tiombe. We hope to hear more from Tiombe on this blog going forward...

NYCLA has an award winning mentor program and I am a most appreciative Mentee. The program’s broad spectrum of mentees made it unique. I had graduated from law school over 14 years prior to participating in the program. Not your average new attorney. My nontraditional path to practice had left me somewhat timid. NYCLA’s Mentor Program provided the support I needed. The year long program paired me with a seasoned attorney who practiced in the same area of law. During the kick-off event I identified the components of my mentoring plan. Then I met with my mentor and we strategized on how to address my action items: learning the unwritten customary rules of practice, reviewing my practice business plan, developing oral advocacy skills and how to deal with complicated ethical issues. My mentor seemed extraordinarily generous with his time, meeting with me, attending the planned events, answering my many questions. Later I learned during our networking sessions that the other mentees were having similar experiences with their mentors. That may be why NYCLA’s program is award winning. NYCLA supplemented the program with complementary CLE workshops on ethics, time management and professionalism plus activities designed to acclimate us to the legal community. At one particular workshop, “Myths of Lawyering Debunked”, a panelist posed the question to the attendees who included mentors and mentees - why did you become a lawyer? All the answers had one central theme – the high calling to help people. The NYCLA Mentor Program is that answer in action.

The Plight of Lawyers

I've been thinking about the "plight" of lawyers: working harder, longer hours, tackling difficult, more complex questions than the business people we work with, but getting compensated at a much lower rate.

If it is true, what is the counter balance benefit that allows us lawyers to continue?
If it is true, why does it happen?
Is it because we don't add value, rather we bog matters with more complexity adding more work for others?
Is that what the business people think, is it true?

"Remember, you are always a member of the Bar when you are at a bar"

I do hate cute, but I had to take that quote and showcase it in the title to this post. It was taken from  this article: http://www.fromthesidebar.com/attorney-client-privilege/cocktail-party-chatter/.

However, beyond the cheezy quote, the article provides useful guidance on what to say and what not to say in the heat of the summer social season--from refraining from legal advice to protecting confidentiality.

Is Your LinkedIn Profile Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct?

Twice I heard warnings cautioning attorneys who use LinkedIn to be careful of how they describe themselves on their LinkedIn profiles.  The concern stems from possible violations of attorney advertising rules. The "Specialties" section of the profile was of most concern. One commentator suggested that you not include any specialty unless you have obtained special certification in that area. Have you considered the professional conduct rules prior to creating your LinkedIn profile?

What if your firm was a private equity portfolio company?

I enjoyed reading Arthur Ciampi's article in the Law Journal about the provocative law suit filed by Jacoby & Meyers to permit non-lawyer ownership of law firm partners.  View the full article here:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202495332432 

What do you think? I will give you the chance to vote on it in a future poll.  For now vote on the precursor poll to the left. 

Institutionalized Mentoring

A sure sign of a growing, sustainable trend is when an ethics opinion is written about that trend. So is the case with mentoring.  Oregon (which was preceded by Georgia and Utah, with other states in the works) has instituted a mandatory mentoring requirement for all attorneys who pass the Oregon state bar, starting this summer.  And just in time before any mentor-mentee partnerships break any rules, the Oregon bar issued a formal opinion on ethics issues arising in mentoring relationships and use of LISTSERVs. For the full text of that opinion, click here: http://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2011-184.pdf

NYCLA's Ethics Hotline

I a volunteered to staff NYCLA's Ethics Hotline in August. I was surprised to have received several calls during my volunteer tenure. Many lawyers have serious professional practice questions that need answers so I applaud the Ethics Committee for the hotline resource. The first step for everyone facing an ethical dilemma is to review the rules; they are accessible on the web and deal (at least broadly) with most issues that came up in my volunteer weeks.



I wish I could tell you more, but the hotline q&a and the committee discussions are confidential. So, if you want to learn more, you will just have to volunteer yourself.

Views on Outsourcing

Because I mentioned it in an earlier post, I wanted to include a link to the recent ABA ethics committee opinion that affirms that lawyers may ethically outsource legal work to lawyers and nonlawyers in the United States and abroad, so long as they remain ultimately responsible for rendering competent services within the bounds of professional conduct, at: http://www.abanet.org/cpr/08-451.pdf.

According to our last survey, the readers of this blog are not as open to outsourcing as is the ABA.

Relying on Advice from Ethics Hotlines

On an appeal form the imposition of sanctions against an attorney for frivolous and bad faith actions, the Court of Appeal of California, Third District in Wallis v. PHL Assoc., considered the applicability of an opinion the attorney received from the State Bar ethics hotline. The atorney argued that the call demonstrated her good faith. The court rejected the reliance because (1) the lawyer did not disuss with the person at the hotline her duties with repect to the protective order and (2) "self-serving evidence of what was said in a confidential conversation with a persson at the ethics hotline is unconvincing." In any case, the court said, the call to the hotline was "weak" evidence of good faith since the eicis hotline is a "confidenial reserch service" and "not a source of legal advice."