The California Bar Association really doesn’t seem to like fraternization between lawyers and their clients–so much so that it’s considering a rule to punish sexual relationships between the two groups as it reworks the state’s ethics rules for attorneys.

While California attorneys can obviously get in trouble for coercing or demanding sex from a client as a quid pro quo, the new rules would potentially discipline attorneys who engage in any sex with clients. The argument in favor of the ban is that any relationship between a client and an attorney is unequal, as the attorney presumably holds the cards. But attorneys who are opposed to this proposed new rule argue that it’s invasive and doesn’t respect their privacy or judgment as consenting adults.

The California Bar Association–the largest in the country–is rewriting its ethics rules for the first time since 1987. Some of the 70-odd proposed changes are a long time coming, and will bring California in line with other states. For example, under the new rules, according to the Associated Press the state will begin “subjecting prosecutors to discipline for failing to turn over evidence they know or reasonably should know would help the defense.” There are also new guidelines being considered for certain instances, like when a lawyer is working with a client who has a “diminished mental capacity,” among others. The new rules are expected to be finalized in the spring of 2017 by the rules commission, and then will be sent to the California Supreme Court for final approval.

Nationwide there’s been a split on whether or not to institute a sex ban between attorneys and clients. Seventeen states have taken the plunge, but California would obviously be a big one to join.

There are, of course, some exceptions that would be in place–like for individuals who are already in a personal relationship prior to the attorney-client relationship. But of course, not all lawyers are happy with this proposal. James Ham, one of the lawyers on the commission, wrote a dissent that included:

Proponents of a complete ban cannot articulate why a lawyer should be disciplined for sexual relations with a mature, intelligent, consenting adult, in the absence of any quid pro quo, coercion, intimidation or undue influence.

But those in favor of a ban argue that the issue is that it’s difficult to tell whether coercion or consent are present–and the potential for coercion creates the problem.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Bar Association May Ban Sex Between Attorneys and Clients appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s top legal tweets!

Olympic Inspiration

“You saved 200 dollars on your textbook purchase”
*Scrolls to total*
“Your total is 400 dollars” #damnit#lawschoolpic.twitter.com/DfAdmm003k

— Mike Brown (@LikeMike025) August 10, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

If you watch a lot of “Law and Order” you might be under the impression that courtroom stunts are common–that pulling out props or making grand gestures are the norm. But in reality, stunts are relatively rare, and successful stunts are rarer, which makes the fact that attorney Nick Rowley dressed up in a chicken suit during a closing argument and won a lawsuit brought against the Kern County School District in California, all the more impressive.

The case was Mitchell Carter v. Kern County School District and focused on the events that transpired at Bakersfield High School in 2010. According to Courtroom View Network, Mitchell Carter, a student at the time, dressed up in a chicken suit at a football rally to make fun of their rival Clovis West High School, which has a golden eagle mascot. He was encouraged to do so by the administration. When Carter went out in the suit the first time, he was attacked by students from Bakersfield. Carter tried to back out of entering the rally a second time, but says that he was compelled to go back out by the administration. Carter claims that a school administrator warned that he may have to pay the chicken suit’s rental fee if he didn’t go back out.

When Carter, dressed in the chicken suit, entered the rally the second time he was rushed by Bakersfield High School students and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He now suffers from psychological problems, has a hard time keeping up with college classes, and will need to pay for growth hormone therapy for the rest of his life because his pituitary gland was damaged. In addition to accusing the school of pushing him to do the stunt, Carter also claimed that the school didn’t break up the fight that caused his brain trauma in a timely fashion.

Rowley said: “He was put in the most hated, personified figure at that time: the opposing team’s mascot…They dressed him up and had him play the fool.” Here’s a video of Rowley explaining the situation, chicken suit and all, courtesy of Courtroom View Network:

While the school district’s attorneys tried to argue that Carter picked fights with members of the team, the jury sided with Carter, finding the school district “100 percent liable for the student’s injuries.” The school district’s settlement with Carter totals $10.5 million.

Rowley donned the chicken costume about 20 minutes into his closing argument, to make a point about why Carter put his suit on in the first place. Rowley pointed out it wasn’t for personal glory, or attention, but because of his school spirit–Carter went through the humiliating act of wearing a chicken suit because his school asked him to. While the defense objected to Rowley’s use of the chicken suit, its rhetorical heft was undoubtable. While props in the courtroom don’t always work, Rowley’s calculated risk clearly paid off. After all, it’s not every day you see an attorney put on a chicken suit in the middle of a courtroom…at least not outside of a TV show.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Clucks Given: Attorney Dresses up in Chicken Suit During Closing Argument appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, Law Street readers! Check out a collection of the best legal tweets of the week below.

Musical Thoughts

It’s the remix to ignition/ law school student edition/ I eat pop tarts for dinner/ I can’t afford my tuition

— Justlawschoolthings (@lawschooltexts) January 23, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Paladin Group has filed a complaint with the California Labor Commission against the RSWG Literary Agency and its agent Geoffrey Sanford. Paladin claims that neither RSWG nor Sanford are licensed agents or attorneys under California law, and thus illegally took 20 percent commissions for licensing the late John Steinbeck’s literary works.

Before getting into the complaint, let me first walk you through what literary agents do to get a better idea why Paladin is suing RSWG.

What is a Literary Agent?

Literary agents are an author’s first step toward publication, and they are essential to the publishing process unless an author decides to self-publish. It’s extremely difficult to land one since hundreds of thousands of books are published each year. If an author obtains a literary agent, that person helps with the manuscript and/or proposal before pitching the book to acquiring editors. Auctions, or bidding wars, can occur if multiple editors want the book and believe it can be a best seller; however, most books get acquired by one editor who expresses interest.

The author then signs an author agreement with the editor’s publishing company, which states the author’s advance (i.e., how much the publisher is paying the author for his book before royalties), grants (usually) the author the copyright to his or her literary work, and gives the literary agent a 10-15 percent commission. The literary agent’s commission can be peanuts if a book’s advance is say, $10,000, which is an average debut novelist’s advance.  However, take Bill Clinton’s advance, which was reportedly more than $10 million. Who wouldn’t want 10-15 percent of that?  Thus, it is easy to see why agents are extremely picky about who they represent because best-selling authors can generate the agent millions of dollars.

What is a Co-Agent?

However, that isn’t the end of the road for an agent’s and author’s potential revenue. When a book publisher grants an author the copyright to his literary work, the author receives a bundle of exclusive rights (e.g., motion picture, television, audio book, e-book, large print, Braille, book club, abridgements, first serial, second serial, etc.) to do with what she pleases. Usually, the author’s agent hires a co-agent or sub-agent to license these rights, which are known as subsidiary rights in the book publishing industry, to third parties.

Sub-agents may specialize in licensing certain rights.  For example, a sub-agent may license rights of an author’s book, such as motion picture rights to help get a novel adapted as a feature film. More frequently, however, sub-agents try to sell an author’s book in countries around the world. You may have seen book covers with the words, “Published in 37 Countries.” You can thank sub-agents for that. Sub-agents generate commissions of 10 – 20 percent depending on the right that is licensed.

Enter Steinbeck

In Steinbeck’s case, Steinbeck’s literary agency is McIntosh and Otis, which is located in New York City.  McIntosh and Otis hired RSWG as a sub-agent, and RSWG negotiated motion picture rights for remakes of Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden” and received 20 percent commissions for its services.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Paladin Group, created by Thomas Steinbeck who is Steinbeck’s only living son, argues that RSWG had no right to negotiate the motion picture rights for “Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden” without the Paladin Group’s consent.

Attorney William Briggs who spoke on RSWG’s behalf, however, argued that the heirs of the Scott family are the rightful owners of Steinbeck’s literary works, so the Paladin Group could not object to RSWG’s negotiations. In 1968, Steinbeck left the majority of his estate to his third wife, Edith Scott, who died in 2003, and left all of Steinbeck’s rights to her heirs.

Briggs also alleges that the Paladin Group misunderstands California law because there is no rule that RSWG must be licensed to sell rights of Steinbeck’s literary works.

Although I do not have access to the Paladin Group’s complaint, the company is rightly concerned about RSWG’s actions. The Paladin Group receives a portion of revenue for every license that is negotiated for Steinbeck’s works, so it is invested in who licenses that work. If RSWG is not properly licensed, the license agreements are null and void and the Paladin Group receives no money. However, even if RSWG is licensed, the Paladin Group may have been able to receive more money than what RSWG negotiated. The 20 percent commissions that RSWG received are likely a huge number, but given that Steinbeck is a Nobel Prize-winning novelist, the price for remaking motion picture rights for any of his works, let alone “Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden” — two of his most popular books — can be potentially millions more.

Hence the value of choosing a literary agent and sub-agent.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Steinbeck’s Son Suing Literary Agency Over Motion Picture Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Now that the world has made it through the excitement that was last week’s LSATs and the premiere of “How to Get Away With Murder,” we’re all back to the normal struggle. From autocorrects that prove you’re working too hard to the constant battle of law student versus the finite amount of ink in a pen, check out the best legal tweets of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=26095 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Need a lawyer? Well soon, we may have an app for that.

Currently there’s a project on crowdfunding website Indiegogo called Sidekik. The idea of sidekik is based on the fact that many Americans have found themselves in situations where they are confronted by the police, or other security force, and may not know their rights. In such a situation, the Sidekik app can be used for a few different things. It will be able to audio and video record the interactions that the user has with the police, and then upload it to a server where it can’t be deleted by just deleting the physical file off the phone. And it can connect the user, in real time, to an attorney who can help. Here’s a more thorough explanation of the idea:

The idea hasn’t really taken off on Indiegogo — so far, just over $11,000 has been raised of the $250,000 that Sidekik estimates it will need to get off the ground. But according to the founders, that initial money is enough to start developing the preliminary stages of the app.

I think the idea, at its core, is an interesting one. I do agree with the founders that most average Americans don’t necessarily know their rights, although if you’re curious, this guide on what to do if you’re pulled over by Lawstreeter Marisa Mostek is an excellent resource. Given the debates the nation has been having about police militarization and fairness, the Sidekik app could play an interesting part in ensuring that civil rights violations are avoided. I highly doubt that an app like this would have saved Michael Brown in Ferguson, but I could see it preventing some more minor civil rights issues.

There are some serious logistical issues though that need to be worked out when it comes to contacting attorneys. Presumably, you only have a few seconds between being pulled over and the cop walking up to your window. There’s no real time to tell your mobile attorney what’s going on, which will probably make it difficult for the attorney to be of real help.

Sidekik is also built on the fact that it will be in contact with attorneys within the jurisdiction where the user is interacting with the police, and be able to send the calls to those attorneys. It’s assumed that attorneys will pick up because of the desirability of client leads. I think that’s a great idea — during normal business hours. But what if you get pulled over at 2:00am? Will Sidekik be able to find a lawyer for you then? It’s certainly a tough guarantee to make, when it involves outsourcing to third parties.

Issues with the “contact an attorney wherever” logistics aside, the recording and uploading to a remote server is a decent idea. It will certainly allow you to chronicle your interactions with the police officer and ensure that the file can’t be deleted permanently if the phone is confiscated or destroyed. There are other apps that do the same thing, but maybe Sidekik will be able to make itself the go-to authority on secure recording.

I have no idea if this app will take off, but I think what it says about the state of American police is significantly more interesting than the app itself. We’re increasingly mistrustful of our police forces, and with more stories coming out every day, the paranoia is understandable. An app that’s based on the presumption that an officer is going to try to trick you or impede your civil rights is concerning. Whether or not Sidekik ends up being successful, it’s an interesting look into our national state of mind.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Weaver via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sidekik: An Attorney in Your Pocket? appeared first on Law Street.