Roberts sidesteps Supreme Court’s ethics controversies in yearly report; The Washington Post, December 31, 2023

 Ann E. Marimow, The Washington Post; Roberts sidesteps Supreme Court’s ethics controversies in yearly report

"Roberts, a history buff, also expounded on the potential for artificial intelligence to both enhance and detract from the work of judges, lawyers and litigants. For those who cannot afford a lawyer, he noted, AI could increase access to justice.

“AI obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. But just as it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law,” Roberts wrote, “machines cannot fully replace key actors in court.”...

Roberts also did not mention in his 13-page report the court’s adoption for the first time of a formal code of conduct, announced in November, specific to the nine justices and intended to promote “integrity and impartiality.” For years, the justices said they voluntarily complied with the same ethical guidelines that apply to other federal judges and resisted efforts by Congress to impose a policy on the high court...

The policy was praised by some as a positive initial step, but criticized by legal ethics experts for giving the justices too much discretion over recusal decisions and for not including a process for holding the justices accountable if they violate their own rules."

How do virtual hearings affect people on the wrong side of the digital divide?; ABA Journal, December 14, 2023

 MATT REYNOLDS, ABA Journal; How do virtual hearings affect people on the wrong side of the digital divide?

"States including Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Texas have adopted standards for virtual hearings...

Proponents of virtual hearings say they can make people’s lives easier. Working parents can attend hearings from the comfort of their homes rather than drive miles to the courthouse and don’t have to take valuable time away from work or their kids.

Nevertheless, while that flexibility may look good on paper, some access-to-justice advocates believe an over-reliance on remote hearings could hurt the technological have-nots, particularly in communities lacking high-speed internet or those without broadband infrastructure.

In 2021, the Federal Communications Commission found that about 14.5 million Americans lacked broadband internet, which it defines as having download speeds of 25 megabits per second, or Mbps, and upload speeds of 3 Mbps. A 2021 Microsoft study put the number closer to 120.4 million people, or one-third of the U.S. population."

One Bar Admission To Rule Them All?; Above The Law, May 6, 2022

JAMES GOODNOW, Above The Law; One Bar Admission To Rule Them All?

"After several years of research, discussion, and drafting, the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) published an open letter to the ABA late last month proposing significant changes to Model Rule 5.5, governing the unauthorized practice of law. If adopted, the new Rule 5.5 would permit a lawyer admitted anywhere in the United States to provide legal services in any jurisdiction that has adopted the new rule, without regard to physical presence, state licensure, or any other geographic factor. One of the longest-lived protective guardrails in the history of American law would be largely dismantled...

The original rules against UPL had two practical purposes: protecting the public from bad lawyering and protecting lawyers from out-of-state competition...

Let’s face it, this collapsing of borders is already happening. Consider the Uniform Bar Examination, which is currently adopted in 37 states. The law we have to study to actually get admitted to any individual jurisdiction is increasingly the same. What’s more, many states have, for years, allowed established attorneys the ability to waive into other state bars on motion alone, without taking the bar exam again. And this model isn’t without precedent. CPAs take a single national exam for their certification that’s been administered for over 100 years, and APRL specifically cited the national driver’s license model in their arguments supporting the new proposed Rule 5.5.

If protecting the public from bad lawyering is no longer a strong rationale for our existing UPL framework, the only justification we’re left with is protecting attorneys from competition. Given the access to justice problems we’re already trying to deal with, this seems to be prioritizing lawyers’ interests ahead of those of the public. Wealthy clients want the best counsel for their needs, no matter where that counsel happens to live and practice. Working-class clients just want an attorney they can afford to see them through the biggest challenges in their life. In both instances, expanding the pool of attorneys is a positive.

Every step our industry takes toward the modern world is a step in the right direction. The proposal makes sense conceptually and from a business standpoint. Reducing artificial barriers to practicing law may invite competition to come into our home states, but it also allows each of us to go out and offer our services to compete on a national scale. For the sake of our clients, and the sake of ourselves, let’s move forward and stop pretending the world ends at the state line."