About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 B. Rep. 1 (1983-1984)

handle is hein.barjournals/breport0012 and id is 1 raw text is: LRIS Opposes Bar Committee Seeks Subpoena of Fee COmmentS On ABA Rules InformationComnsoABRue The D.C. Bar's Lawyer Referral and Information Service (LRIS) remains caught in the middle of an attorneys fees dispute originated by a sex dis- crimination complaini against the Department of Enei-g. C/hewning v Edwards was settleil out of court in favor of the plaintiffs, but the resolu- tion of attorneys fees for the class action case has never been achieved. Currently the Bar seeks certification before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Flannery to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals an order allowing a subpoena of its records. History The original subpoena from the U.S. Attorneys Office in October 1982 re- quested all documents containing fee information on any legal matter from 1976 to the present. The Bar moved to quash that subpoena before U.S. Magistrate Jean Dwyer. Except for providing a list of names of lawyers willing to handle Title VII cases, presumably so that the government could depose individual panel mem- bers, the Ba's position prevailed. However, the government appealed to Judge Flannery, who affirmed the magistrate's ruling. Later, the U.S. Attorneys Office returned to the magistrate and sought leave to issue another subpoena because- of their asserted, particularized need for the information. Dwyer granted that motion and, on September 2nd, 1983, Flannery affirmed. A second sub- poena was then issued. A subsequent motion by the Bar for a protective order was granted in part on October 14, 1983. The additional protection re- quested by the Bar, which was not granted, was the redaction of lawyer names, firm names, addresses and phone numbers. The Bar has sought certification for an interlocutory appeal from both the Septembr 2nd and the October 14 orders. Issues The government has insisted that it cannot disp,e of the Chew'n'ny dispute without the LRIS information because it asserts that LRIS fee infor- mation is critical to establishing the prevailing rate for Title VII attorneys. On the other hand, the Bar has argued that the information sought is signifi- cantly lower than the community rate and therefore, irrelevant to the liti- gation. Through its counsel, David Perdue of Kirkland & Ellis, the Bar has argued that the burden of compiling the records is unreasonable for the limited staff that operates the referral service. Such a precedent would leave the sert - The D.C. Bar has set up a special committee, headed by former Ethics Committee chair Robert Jordan of Steptoe & Johnson, to seek comments from the members and make recom- mendations to the Board of Governors on the ABA's recently adopted Rules of Professional Responsibility. Through the courtesy of the Ameri- can Bar Association, Bar Report is publishing the newly adopted rules in this issue. Most sections of the new rules are followed by a comment section prepared by the ABA's Kutak Commission (which developed the new code) and a code comparison section, which compares the new rules with provisions of the ABA' Model Code of Professional Responsibility. (See ABA Proposed Rules of Professional Conduct, page 10.4) Adoption of the new rules ultimately rests with the D.C. Court of Appeals. The committee now seeks comments from the membership as it prepares its recommendations for the Board of Gov- ernors. Comments should be ad- dressed to Special Committee on Model Rules, c/o D.C. Bar, 1426 H Street, N.W., Eighth Floor, Wash- ington, D.C. 20005 and should be received by the committee no later than January 15, 1984. The Jordan Committee hopes to send its recommendations to the Board of Governors by May 1984. The Board would then schedule a series of special meetings to discuss the new rules and submit its recommendations, rel non, toi the Court of Appeals by the end of the current Bar year in Jine 1984. Those rules would then be reprinted with additional comments to be directed to the D.C. Coiurt of Appeals. Members of the Special Committee on Model Rules of Professional Ci1n- duct are: William H. Allen, former chair of the Bar's Legal Ethics Com- mittee, and Charles E. Buffon, current vice-chair of the Bar's Legal Ethics Committee, of Covington & Burling; ice vulnerable, as well, ti similar ire- quests in the future. In addition, the Rar has argued that any disclosure of the fee information, even under seal, would result in LRIS attorneys' is- continuing their practice of offering lower than usual fees to the public through the service, thereby adversely affecting the program and public. For the Chenwing litigation, which has been ongoing since 1976, the attor- nmy fee question is the last remaining area oif disagreimnent. The ane point on which all the plaities can agree on is the desirability of a speedy' resolution of this final iluestion. U Thomas A. Duckenfield, clerk if the D.C. Superior and immediate past treasurer of the Bar; Warren A. Fitch, D.C. Public Defender Service and a member of the Bar's Legal Ethics Committee; Mniiroe H. Freedman, Hofstra Law School and former chair of the Bar's Legal Ethics Committee; Jamie S. Gorelick of Miller, Cassidy, Larrocca & Lewin and current Board member; Fred Grabowsky. U.S. Attor- neys Office and immediate past Bar Counsel; Thomas H. Henderson Jr., Bar Counsel; Philip A. Lacovara, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed and current Board member; Brian K. Landsberg, Chief, Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division, Justice Department; Lawrence Latto, Shea & Gardner and former chair of the Board on Profes- sional Responsibility; Mark H. Lynch, American Civil Liberties Union and current chair of the D.C. Bar Legal. Ethics Committee; Joseph L. Mayer of the Bar's Board on Professional Responsibility; Mellie Nelson, Civil Division of the Federal Programs Branch at the Justice Department; Georgianna F. Rathbun of Common Cause and current lay member of the Bar's Ethics Committee; Franklin M. Schultz of Reavis & McGrath and former member of the Bar's Legal Ethics Committee; Joe Sims of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and a member of the Bar's Legal Ethics Committee; John Sims, of Public Citizen, Inc., and Togo D. West Jr. of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler and former member of the Bar's Legal Ethics Committee. U Final Dues Statements Mailed During the first wv-oek of October delinquent Bar members wiLit mailed certified letters fiir pax ment of niutstanding dues. Cui reil rules of the Bar mandate paynment of tlut by close of busine!- WXednesda, Ntt ilber 30, lis; tri dehlqow r ifeimb, cs will be W lL 11a .% 1 NU.NJJ'1l11421 UI I rell ,.i 31dueS aret $45 for acti e members, ant $20 for iolu-tie and judicial. Any questions about statu of paymeot should be directed tip the Bar's Accounting Ifice at i8-1510. Late Development As Bar Jihpoif was going to press, Judge Thonm Flannery denied the Bar's request to ertify to the Court of Appeals the oilers in the ihetwiinq Bar Bo ard Delays Referendum The Bar Board will poll Ile member- ship on the question of whether tl'e D.C. Bar should Purchase a law library. However, the Board is still hammerirg out the precise language of the refer- endum and expects to do -t) at the November 8 Board meeting. A study group head by Stuart Land of Arnold and Porter has been compil- ing information and developing pro- posals since the Bar Association of the District of Columbia library was noti- fied in 1982 that it would have to be moved from its home in the U.S. court- house. Because of the 1980 referendum the Board lacksauthority to spend membership dues for a library. Thus membership approval is required. It was the sense of the Board at its October 11 meeting that purchase of a library was dependent on an increase in the dues ceiling, but there was no final disposition of the issue. Ironically, the Bar Association library itself w.'as purchased recently by the U.S. Attor- ney's Office, which had been a principal user of the collection due to its close proximity in the courthouse. The Land Committee had never restricted its study to purchase of the association collection alone, but recom- mended emphatically that any library operated by the Bar should be as com- plete as possible, including access to Lexis and Westlaw. The proposal could cost as much as $2-million, though cer- tain expenses might be spread out o ver several years. The matter should be settled at the November meeting afterwhich the referendum materials, which exam- ines the proposal, will be mailed to all Bar members. Along with the key question of whether the Board is authorized to expend dues for a library, memhers will be polled as well on pi'eference of location and whether members are likely to make use of the facilities. Authorizing the Holrd to spend the money does not require the Board to start a library. but it is the first crucial tep because tof' re-trictions on how clues money may be spent. The Board also would need to act quickly in orler to consider the library actulsi- tion in its 1-.3 iodget. The Budget Committet- is scheiduled to receive a p~ropiisel budget at a serie- of meet- ings that liegin in January 19lS-. The Board is, tentatively scheduled to ap- prove the 19i-l 85 liudget at a special Board meeting scheduled for Apr-il 12. 19e4. U AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most