‼️
Prof Responsibility • Loyalty
PR#031
Legal Definition
Under Rule 1.8(d), prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer may not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to an account based in substantial part on information related to the representation.
Plain English Explanation
Most entertainment is based on story telling, and some of the best stories involve real life situations where crazy shit happens. Lawyers have a unique job where they commonly meet people who are involved in extremely crazy situations, many of which would make for a good book or movie. Thus, when a lawyer takes on a client, especially in high-profile or interesting cases, there might be a temptation to consider how the case could become a book or movie someday (and the ability to sell those rights). But if a lawyer starts thinking this way, it could alter how they handle the case. They might make decisions that create a better story, rather than what's best for their client.
Thus, this rule basically says, "While you are reprsenting a client, you're not allowed to try to buy the rights to their story. However, after you're done representing them, then you're free to negotiate."
Thus, this rule basically says, "While you are reprsenting a client, you're not allowed to try to buy the rights to their story. However, after you're done representing them, then you're free to negotiate."
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is representing Sam in a high-profile murder case that has caught national attention. While the trial is ongoing, a movie producer approaches Bob about buying the rights to Sam's story. Bob tells the producer he can't make any deals now, but to check back after the trial is over. Result: Bob has handled this situation correctly. He didn't make or negotiate any agreement for the media rights while still representing Sam. By telling the producer to come back later, he's respecting the rule and focusing on Sam's case.
Hypo 2: Amy is a lawyer representing a famous athlete, Tim, in a contract dispute. Tim's case isn't going well, and Amy thinks she could write a great tell-all book about the behind-the-scenes drama. She asks Tim to sign an agreement giving her the book rights, promising it might help fund his legal fees. Result: Amy has violated the rule. She's trying to negotiate for media rights while still representing Tim. Her promise that it might help with legal fees doesn't justify breaking this rule.
Hypo 3: Bob is defending Sam in a complex white-collar crime case. Bob thinks the case would make a great TV series. Without telling Sam, Bob starts writing a pilot script based on the case, changing names and some details. He plans to shop it around to networks after the trial. Result: Even though Bob hasn't made or negotiated an agreement for the rights, he's still violating the spirit of the rule. He's using information from his representation to create a media product while still representing Sam. This could affect how he handles the case and is an ethical violation.
Hypo 4: After successfully defending Sam in the murder trial, Bob writes a book about his career as a defense attorney. He includes a chapter about Sam's case, using only publicly available information from court records and media reports. Result: Bob's actions are likely acceptable. The representation has concluded, and he's not using private information from his representation of Sam. However, Bob should still be cautious about client confidentiality and might want to get Sam's permission before publishing.
Hypo 2: Amy is a lawyer representing a famous athlete, Tim, in a contract dispute. Tim's case isn't going well, and Amy thinks she could write a great tell-all book about the behind-the-scenes drama. She asks Tim to sign an agreement giving her the book rights, promising it might help fund his legal fees. Result: Amy has violated the rule. She's trying to negotiate for media rights while still representing Tim. Her promise that it might help with legal fees doesn't justify breaking this rule.
Hypo 3: Bob is defending Sam in a complex white-collar crime case. Bob thinks the case would make a great TV series. Without telling Sam, Bob starts writing a pilot script based on the case, changing names and some details. He plans to shop it around to networks after the trial. Result: Even though Bob hasn't made or negotiated an agreement for the rights, he's still violating the spirit of the rule. He's using information from his representation to create a media product while still representing Sam. This could affect how he handles the case and is an ethical violation.
Hypo 4: After successfully defending Sam in the murder trial, Bob writes a book about his career as a defense attorney. He includes a chapter about Sam's case, using only publicly available information from court records and media reports. Result: Bob's actions are likely acceptable. The representation has concluded, and he's not using private information from his representation of Sam. However, Bob should still be cautious about client confidentiality and might want to get Sam's permission before publishing.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
Are lawyers allowed to have sex with their clients?
Can an attorney continue to represent a client if a conflict exists?
Does representing clients with inconsistent positions violate the lawyer's Duty of Loyalty?
How can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?
How can screening avoid imputed conflicts?
How do the California rules differ from the ABA when it comes to a lawyer accepting compensation from a party other than their client?
In assessing a conflict of interest, what is a concurrent conflict?
In assessing the Duty of Loyalty, what's the difference between an actual conflict and a potential conflict?
In California, are lawyer's allowed to have sex with their clients?
In California, how can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?
In California, how must a lawyer advise their client to seek independent counsel when dealing with potential financial conflicts?
In California, may a lawyer represent an insurance company and its policyholder as joint clients?
In California, what are the restrictions related to lawyers acquiring the media rights of their clients?
In California, what are the restrictions related to lawyers receiving gifts from their clients?
In California, when may a lawyer loan money to a client?
What are some common issues that occur when a lawyer represents multiple clients in the same matter?
What are the most common types of conflicts of interest that involve a lawyer's own interest?
What are the restrictions related to lawyers receiving gifts from their clients?
What is an imputed conflict and how can it be resolved?
What is required in order for a lawyer to accept compensation from a party other than their client?
What is required in order for a lawyer to avoid a financial conflict with a client?
What is the Duty of Loyalty?
When does the general rule of imputed conflicts NOT apply?
When may a lawyer appear as a witness in a matter where they represent a party?
When may a lawyer loan money to a client?
When may there be a conflict of interest with a former client?
