Much has been said about Rachel Rodgers’ rant about older attorneys supposedly using ethics as a weapon against younger attorneys.
I’ll be honest, I’m not entirely sure what her point was, but I can totally understand someone wanting to write just to blow off steam. Although it might be a good idea to wait until you calm down before posting it; but that’s another issue, entirely.
I’m not here to decide whether she is violating any ethics rules, even though she is. My reason for writing about this is that I took a few minutes yesterday to peruse my state’s Attorney Grievance Commission website. Listed are the names of sanctioned attorneys next to the sanctions against them and the reason for the sanctions.
There are a lot of names. Several names appear multiple times over the course of a few years.
Some sanctions are for criminal conduct, but a large amount are sanctions against young attorneys who screwed up the fundamental aspects of practicing law.
Trust accounts. Competence. Timely filing. Communication with a client.
A slightly smaller number of attorneys are sanctioned for failure to satisfactorily supervise junior associates. That tells me that those junior associates would have been sanctioned had they been going solo, without the supervising attorney as a safety net. The issues were the same — fundamental tenets of the practice of law.
Is it wrong for an older attorney to use ethics as a weapon against younger attorneys? If by that you mean to beat somebody with a bound Rules of Professional Responsibilty, then yes.
If you mean to increase awareness of the potential pitfalls for a newly barred attorney going solo, then no.
