Mindful Ethics:
Professional Responsibility for
Lawyers in the Digital Age

Class Six
September 23
Who’s In Charge

As Mindy continues to expand her business, Pedro searches for new entrepreneurial avenues. He sees a flier at the courthouse advertising a housing law CLE that is free if participants agree to take a pro bono case at the conclusion of the seminar. Although he knows nothing about housing law other than what he learned while studying for the bar, he signs up so that he does not have to pay for the $399 cost of the seminar.

Pedro is assigned Sandra Davis, a single mother with two young children. Sandra is being evicted from her apartment in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. She fell behind on rent after unexpected medical bills drained her savings. She has lived in the apartment for 12 years and claims her landlord is trying to push her out to raise the rent for new tenants.

Pedro learns that Judge Dee Nied is assigned to hear the case in two weeks. Pedro begins researching eviction defense and learns that Judge Nied has a reputation for siding with landlords—especially when rent has not been paid. As he does more research, he becomes fascinated with the lack of uniformity across landlord-tenant decisions and finds a webpage that compiles and posts statistical information on the decisions of the various county court judges. The website provides constant updates as judges render decisions.

The statistics regarding Judge Nied suggest that a client’s probability of success when appearing before Judge Nied is 30%. Pedro learns that Judge Nied is scheduled to take maternity leave in 30 days and that Judge Grant Tidd will cover Judge Nied’s cases. Pedro looks at Judge Tidd’s stats on the webpage and finds that he has better stats, granting status adjustment to 85% of petitioners under similar facts.

For Pedro, the answer is clear plus he has an idea. He schedules a meeting with his client and explains why he believe it would be good to try to get another judge. He recommends that they file a motion to continue the hearing based upon his "newly scheduled plans" to take a ski vacation.

Davis resists and says that she “just wants the case over.” She isn’t into more delays and just wants her case decided. She says that she has faith in the legal system and believes that any judge will do the right thing. Pedro replies that it’s Davis’s case, but if she wants Pedro to represent him, then she will need to agree to Pedro’s strategy. Davis reluctantly agrees. The motion for a continuance is granted and Judge Tidd is assigned to the case in 5 weeks.

Click here for link

1. What are your thoughts on Rules 1.2/1.4 and the appropriate distinction between the lawyer's right to determine strategy and the client's right to decide on significant matters pertaining to his case?

2.How do you feel about Pedro or any lawyer's strategic decision to take a vacation or otherwise create a personal conflict in order to reschedule a court proceeding?

3. Do you think that lawyers should be required to provide a certain number of hours of pro bono service each year?