Allison D. Rhodes Partner, Portland / Los Angeles / arhodes@hinshawlaw.com

Transcription

1 Allison D. Rhodes Partner, Portland / Los Angeles / arhodes@hinshawlaw.com Practice Areas Legal Professional Responsibility & Ethics White Collar Crime Commercial Litigation Professional Liability Industries Accounting Lawyers & Law Firms Education J.D., cum laude, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, 1999; Recipient, International Academy of Trial Lawyers Commendation for Distinguished Achievement; Recipient, The Justice Robert E Jones Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy, 1999 B.A., Sociology, Lewis & Clark College, 1994 Admissions Oregon (2000) California (2008) U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (2007) Practice Focus and Client Representations Allison Rhodes focuses her practice in legal professional responsibility with particular emphasis on legal ethical matters, attorney disciplinary defense and lawyer mobility. She also handles complex conflict of interest and multiple representation questions, as well as attorney-client privilege matters and work product doctrine matters. Ms. Rhodes advises individuals and entities, from solo practitioners to large firms and in-house legal departments in sophisticated professional responsibility matters for a variety of legal fields, including transaction and litigation practices. She also advises lawyers and law firms in partnership and corporate structuring, lawyer dissociation and lateral hiring. In addition, Ms. Rhodes litigates law firm dissolution, fiduciary duty matters and lawyer separations. Ms. Rhodes also represents lawyers in white collar criminal investigations at both the state and federal levels. She has a general commercial litigation practice and also represents professionals such as accountants, social workers and real estate agents and brokers in their professional liability matters. Professional Background Ms. Rhodes joined Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in December Previously she was a deputy district attorney with the Multnomah Country District Attorney s Office, where she was assigned to the Gang Crimes Unit with liaison responsibilities with both the Portland and Gresham police departments. In May 2006 Ms. Rhodes received a commendation medal from the Portland Police Bureau for her service while in the Gang Crimes Unit. In addition, while with the Multnomah County District Attorney s Office she was cross-designated as a Special United States Attorney under the Project Safe Neighborhoods Program. Ms. Rhodes graduated fourth in her law school class. After completing her undergraduate study and throughout law school, Ms. Rhodes was a social service specialist with the Oregon Department of Human Services, where she was a child protective service worker and the regional specialist in cases involving the abuse of children with disabilities. Ms. Rhodes is a member of Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL), where she serves as a member of its board of directors. Her professional memberships also include the Oregon Women Lawyers, Oregon Hispanic Bar Association and the Hispanic National Bar Association. She is fluent in Spanish. Since 2008, Ms. Rhodes has been named annually to the Rising Stars list in the area of Professional Liability: Defense, by Oregon Super Lawyers & Rising Stars magazine.

2 Publications and Presentations Ms. Rhodes speaks and writes on the topic of legal ethics and professional responsibility. Her publications include: Co-author, Client Files and Digital Law Practices: Rethinking Old Concepts in an Era of Lawyer Mobility, Suffolk University Law Review, Volume XLIII, Number 4, December Co-author, "Multiple-Client Conflicts," Chapter 9, The Ethical Oregon Lawyer, Oregon State Bar Association, Co-author, "The Ends Don't Justify Illegal or Unethical Means," Los Angeles Daily Journal, June 16, Co-author, Patent Opinion Firm s Inadvertent Conflict of Interest Bars Evidence of Patent Opinion, The Business Suit, a publication of the Defense Research Institute's Commercial Litigation Committee, June Co-author, Are the Electronic Files on Your Computer Yours, or Your Client s?, American Legal Ethics Column, published by the Oregon State Bar Litigation Section, March District of Columbia Opinion Clarifies "Who is an Attorney" Within RPC 4.2, Litigation Group of the Oregon State Bar, January Her presentations include: Who Is a Partner? The Legal Implications of Titles, Hinshaw s annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February "Money The Root of All Ethics? Fee Agreements, Fee Shifting and Settlement Considerations, Oregon State Bar Civil Rights Section, Tigard, Oregon, October Ethics, American College of Investment Counsel (ACIC) Annual Spring Investment Forum, Chicago, Illinois, April Who is the Client and Standing to Sue Successor Entities, Affiliates and Subsidiaries, Hinshaw s annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, March Law Firm Divorces, Part 2: Who Gets What (And How)? Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL), Orlando, Florida, February Ethics Attorney Mobility and Business Combinations, American College of Investment College (ACIC), New York, New York, October Nexus, Perplexus: What Are the Limits on Judicial Power to Discipline, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, July "Current Ethics Issues for In-House Counsel," Association of Corporate Counsel, Oregon Chapter, Portland, Oregon, December 2008.

3 "The 2008 Ethical Reception: The Download," Hinshaw hosted CLE, Portland, Oregon, December "The Nuts and Bolts of Ethics In Estate Planning," Oregon State Bar CLE seminar, Portland, Oregon, November Professional Responsibility and Risk Management 101, New Lawyers Division, Oregon State Bar Association CLE seminar, Portland, Oregon, October Ethical Considerations in Corporate Formation and Representation, Oregon State Bar, Portland, Oregon, October Conflicts of Interest for In-House and Outside Corporate Counsel, Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Conference, Hollywood, California, September Attorney Client Privilege and Electronic Communications From an Ethics Perspective. (Use of , discovery, etiquette.), The American College of Investment Counsels Spring 2008 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April Guess Who is Coming to Sue You?" Hinshaw s Legal Malpractice Risk Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February, Ethical Considerations When Representing Multiple Parties in Mediation, Oregon Trial Lawyers Association Fall CLE Event, Portland, Oregon, December Judge, Moot Court Mock Trial Competition, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, November Multiple Investor Representation and Other Kamikaze Missions, Oregon State Bar Securities Regulations Section meeting, Portland, Oregon, November Practical Ethics for the Immigration Practitioner: Client Identification and Flat Fee, Earned Upon Receipt Fee Agreements, Immigrant Law Group CLE, November Ethical Considerations in Public Sector Law, American Bar Association, Public Sector and Government Law Section, Portland, Oregon, October Conflicts of Interest, Hinshaw in-house CLE presentation, Portland, Oregon, October Top Three Ethical Quandaries for Corporate Counsel, Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, October License to Kill, Ethical Issues in Corporate Investigations, American College of Investment Counsel Fall Conference, New York, New York, October Ethics of Outsourcing and Working With International Lawyers: Contact with Represented Parties in a Business Transaction and Conflicts of Interest Imputation, American College of Investment Counsel Spring Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April 2007.

4 Ethics Update, Portland Chapter, Association of Corporate Counsel, Portland, Oregon, December Conflicts of Interest, Washington County Bar Association CLE, Hillsboro, Oregon, November Conflicts of Interest, American Bar Foundation, First Annual Fellows Meeting, Portland, Oregon, October Ethics in Employment Law, National Business Institute s Oregon CLE course, Employment Law Issues, Portland, Oregon, April Community Service Activities Ms. Rhodes is a member of the Board of Trustees for the Emanuel Children s Hospital Foundation, Emanuel Hospital Foundation and the Good Samaritan Foundation, each part of Legacy Health Systems. In her capacity as a trustee, she sits on the Foundations finance committee.

5 Calon Russell Portland, Oregon Practice Areas Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility Commercial Litigation Labor & Employment Industries Lawyers & Law Firms Government Education J.D., Lewis & Clark Law School, 2009; Articles Editor, Lewis & Clark Law Review M.B.A., Portland State University, 2004 B.A., Psychology, Whitman College, 2000 Practice Focus and Client Representations Calon Russell (pronounced Caylon ) advises lawyers and law firms on legal ethics and professional responsibility matters. His practice includes state bar disciplinary defense, handling internal law firm disputes and risk management, including reviewing and drafting lawyer-client agreements, inter-firm agreements, intrafirm agreements and firm advertising. The other half of Mr. Russell s practice involves civil litigation, primarily at the appellate level. In that arena, he has experience with, inter alia, labor and employment law, constitutional law and the representation of public officials. Professional Background Mr. Russell joined Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP as an associate in October Previously he was a law clerk with the firm since 2007, and a summer associate in In 2009, Mr. Russell spent a semester interning with the in-house counsel department of WebTrends, Inc. While there, he drafted the company s Privacy Policy as well as the Terms of Use for the company blog. In addition to his other law school achievements, Mr. Russell was a Business Law Fellowship scholar and Business Law Roundtable scholar. He is a member of the Multnomah Bar Association and has served on its Equality Committee. Admissions Oregon (2009) U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (2010) Publications and Presentations Mr. Russell s publications include: Putting a Stitch in Time: Dealing Internally with Lawyer Overbilling, ABA Law Practice Today, May The Standard has been Altered: Does Attorney-Client Privilege Protect Public Records? Oregon State Bar Bulletin, January Lobbying Reform: What is the Problem? 12 Lewis & Clark Law Review 853 (2008). His presentations include Legal Ethics and Social Media: What Attorneys Need to Know, a National Business Institute live teleconference in December Community Service Activities Mr. Russell contributes pro bono legal services to local nonprofit entities, most notably Lane Hunter > Dance, which he helped incorporate, and for which he also serves as a board member.

6 He has taught self-sufficiency skills to mentally handicapped adults, and in 2004 he oversaw the children s music room and gave music lessons at Ethos, Inc., a music center in Portland dedicated to the promotion of music and music-based education for youth in underserved communities. Personal Calon enjoys playing Australian rules football and he races for the Bridgetown Velo cycling team. Other interests include etymology and drumming, and he has been a personal fitness trainer since During his undergraduate studies, he was a three-time All- American Nordic skier, finishing second overall in the 2000 National Championships. He worked as an assistant Nordic ski coach at Whitman College, where he coached the 2001 USCSA National Championship team.

7 SELECTED OREGON RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 7.1 COMMUNICATION CONCERNING A LAWYER'S SERVICES (a) A lawyer shall not make or cause to be made any communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, whether in person, in writing, electronically, by telephone or otherwise, if the communication: (1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a statement of fact or law necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading; (2) is intended or is reasonably likely to create a false or misleading expectation about results the lawyer or the lawyer's firm can achieve; (3) except upon request of a client or potential client, compares the quality of the lawyer's or the lawyer's firm's services with the quality of the services of other lawyers or law firms; (4) states or implies that the lawyer or the lawyer's firm specializes in, concentrates a practice in, limits a practice to, is experienced in, is presently handling or is qualified to handle matters or areas of law if the statement or implication is false or misleading; (5) states or implies that the lawyer or the lawyer s firm is in a position to improperly influence any court or other public body or office; (6) contains any endorsement or testimonial, unless the communication clearly and conspicuously states that any result that the endorsed lawyer or law firm may achieve on behalf of one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients; (7) states or implies that one or more persons depicted in the communication are lawyers who practice with the lawyer or the lawyer's firm if they are not; (8) states or implies that one or more persons depicted in the communication are current clients or former clients of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm if they are not, unless the communication clearly and conspicuously discloses that the persons are actors or actresses; (9) states or implies that one or more current or former clients of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm have made statements about the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, unless the making of such statements can be factually substantiated; (10) contains any dramatization or recreation of events, such as an automobile accident, a courtroom speech or a negotiation session, unless the communication clearly and conspicuously discloses that a dramatization or recreation is being presented;

8 (11) is false or misleading in any manner not otherwise described above; or (12) violates any other Rule of Professional Conduct or any statute or regulation applicable to solicitation, publicity or advertising by lawyers. (b) An unsolicited communication about a lawyer or the lawyer's firm in which services are being offered must be clearly and conspicuously identified as an advertisement unless it is apparent from the context that it is an advertisement. (c) An unsolicited communication about a lawyer or the lawyer's firm in which services are being offered must clearly identify the name and post office box or street address of the office of the lawyer or law firm whose services are being offered. (d) A lawyer may pay others for disseminating or assisting in the dissemination of communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's firm only to the extent permitted by Rule 7.2. (e) A lawyer may not engage in joint or group advertising involving more than one lawyer or law firm unless the advertising complies with Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 as to all involved lawyers or law firms. Notwithstanding this rule, a bona fide lawyer referral service need not identify the names and addresses of participating lawyers. Adopted 01/01/05 Amended 12/01/06: Paragraph (a)(5) reworded to conform to former DR 2-101(A)(5). Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0): Firm Law firm Matter Reasonably Writing Comparison to Oregon Code Paragraph (a) retains DR 2-101(A). The requirement in DR 2-101(B) to retain records of communications for two years from dissemination has been eliminated. Paragraph (b) retains DR 2-101(C). Paragraph (c) retains DR 2-101(E).

9 Paragraph (d) retains DR 2-101(F). Paragraph (e) retains DR 2-101(G). Comparison to ABA Model Rule ABA Model Rule 7.1 is much shorter and less specific. It prohibits a lawyer from making false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer s services and defines a false or misleading communication as one that contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement not materially misleading. RULE 7.2 ADVERTISING (a) A lawyer may pay the cost of advertisements permitted by these rules and may hire employees or independent contractors to assist as consultants or advisors in marketing a lawyer's or law firm's services. A lawyer shall not otherwise compensate or give anything of value to a person or organization to promote, recommend or secure employment by a client, or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment by a client, except as permitted by paragraph (c) or Rule (b) A lawyer shall not request or knowingly permit a person or organization to promote, recommend or secure employment by a client through any means that involves false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's firm. If a lawyer learns that employment by a client has resulted from false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, the lawyer shall so inform the client. (c) A lawyer or law firm may be recommended, employed or paid by, or cooperate with, a prepaid legal services plan, lawyer referral service, legal service organization or other similar plan, service or organization so long as: (1) the operation of such plan, service or organization does not result in the lawyer or the lawyer's firm violating Rule 5.4, Rule 5.5, ORS 9.160, or ORS through 9.520; (2) the recipient of legal services, and not the plan, service or organization, is recognized as the client; (3) no condition or restriction on the exercise of any participating lawyer's professional judgment on behalf of a client is imposed by the plan, service or organization; and (4) such plan, service or organization does not make communications that would violate Rule 7.3 if engaged in by the lawyer. Adopted 01/01/05

10 Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0): Firm Knowingly Law firm Comparison to Oregon Code This rule retains DR in its entirety, except that the references in (c)(4) are limited to Rule 7.3. Comparison to ABA Model Rule ABA Model Rule 7.2(a) permits advertising through written, recorded or electronic communication, including public media, subject to the requirements of Rule 7.1 and 7.3. ABA Model Rule 7.2(b) is similar to DR 2-103(A). It prohibits a lawyer from compensating a person for recommending the lawyer s services, but allows a lawyer to pay the cost of advertisements allowed by the Rules, to pay the usual charges of a legal service or referral plan, or to purchase a practice under Rule MR 7.2(b)(4) allows a lawyer to refer clients to a lawyer or nonlawyer professional under a reciprocal referral agreement if the agreement is not exclusive and the client is informed of the existence and nature of the reciprocal agreement. ABA Model Rule 7.2(c) requires that communications under the rule include the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible for its content. RULE 7.3 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS (a) A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted: (1) is a lawyer; or (2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer. (b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in-person, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if: (1) the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional or mental state of the prospective client is such that the person could not exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer;

11 (2) the prospective client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or (3) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment. (c) Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a prospective client known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall include the words "Advertisement" in noticeable and clearly readable fashion on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication is a person specified in paragraph (a). (d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph (a), a lawyer may participate with a prepaid or group legal service plan operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer that uses in-person or telephone contact to solicit memberships or subscriptions for the plan from persons who are not known to need legal services in a particular matter covered by the plan. Adopted 01/01/05 Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0): Electronic communication Known Knows Matter Reasonable Reasonably should know Written Comparison to Oregon Code Paragraph (a) is similar to and replaces DR 2-104(A)(1) and (2), although this rule prohibits personal solicitation of a client only when pecuniary gain is a significant motive of the lawyer. Paragraph (b) is similar to DR 2-101(D). Paragraph (c) is essentially the same as DR 2-101(H). Paragraph (d) is the same as to DR 2-104(A)(3). Comparison to ABA Model Rule Paragraphs (a) and (d) are the Model Rule.

12 Paragraph (b) is the Model Rule with the addition of (b)(1) from DR 2-101(D). Paragraph (c) is the Model Rule, with the addition of in noticeable and clearly readable fashion to incorporate Oregon s requirement that Advertisement be larger and darker than the type used for the text of the communication. RULE 7.5 FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEADS (a) A lawyer may use professional announcement cards, office signs, letterheads, telephone and electronic directory listings, legal directory listings or other professional notices so long as the information contained therein complies with Rule 7.1 and other applicable Rules. (b) A lawyer may be designated "Of Counsel" on a letterhead if the lawyer has a continuing professional relationship with a lawyer or law firm, other than as a partner or associate. A lawyer may be designated as "General Counsel" or by a similar professional reference on stationery of a client if the lawyer or the lawyer's firm devotes a substantial amount of professional time in the representation of the client. (c) A lawyer in private practice: (1) shall not practice under a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name or under a name that contains names other than those of lawyers in the firm; (2) may use a trade name in private practice if the name does not state or imply a connection with a governmental agency or with a public or charitable legal services organization and is not otherwise in violation of Rule 7.1; and (3) may use in a firm name the name or names of one or more of the retiring, deceased or retired members of the firm or a predecessor law firm in a continuing line of succession. The letterhead of a lawyer or law firm may give the names and dates of predecessor firms in a continuing line of succession and may designate the firm or a lawyer practicing in the firm as a professional corporation. (d) Except as permitted by paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not permit his or her name to remain in the name of a law firm or to be used by the firm during the time the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm. During such time, other members of the firm shall not use the name of the lawyer in the firm name or in professional notices of the firm. This rule does not apply to periods of one year or less during which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm if it was contemplated that the lawyer would return to active and regular practice with the firm within one year. (e) Lawyers shall not hold themselves out as practicing in a law firm unless the lawyers are actually members of the firm.

13 (f) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (c), a law firm practicing in more than one jurisdiction may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification of the firm members in an office of the firm shall indicate the jurisdictional limitations of those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located. Adopted 01/01/05 Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0): Firm Law firm Partner Substantial Comparison to Oregon Code This rule retains DR in its entirety. Comparison to ABA Model Rule Paragraph (a) of ABA Model Rule encompasses the same provisions as paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) of this rule. Paragraph (b) of the Model Rule is essentially the same as paragraph (f) of this rule. Paragraph (c) of the Model Rule is similar to paragraph (d) of this rule, but without the one year exception. Paragraph (d) of the Model Rule is essentially the same as paragraph (e) of this rule. RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT (a) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (1) violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (2) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer s fitness to practice law; (4) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; or (5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by mans that violate these Rules or other law, or

14 (6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law. (b) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1), (3) and (4) and Rule 3.3(a)(1), it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer to advise clients or others about or to supervise lawful covert activity in the investigation of violations of civil or criminal law or constitutional rights, provided the lawyer's conduct is otherwise in compliance with these Rules of Professional Conduct. "Covert activity," as used in this rule, means an effort to obtain information on unlawful activity through the use of misrepresentations or other subterfuge. "Covert activity" may be commenced by a lawyer or involve a lawyer as an advisor or supervisor only when the lawyer in good faith believes there is a reasonable possibility that unlawful activity has taken place, is taking place or will take place in the foreseeable future. Adopted 01/01/05 Amended 12/01/06: Paragraph (a)(5) added. Defined Terms (see Rule 1.0): Believes Fraud Knowingly Reasonable Comparison to Oregon Code This rule is essentially the same as DR 1-102(A). Paragraph (b) retains DR 1-102(D). Comparison to ABA Model Rule Paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) are the same as Model Rule 8.4(a) through (f), except that MR 8.4(a) also prohibits attempts to violate the rules. Paragraph (b) has no counterpart in the Model Rules.

15 ETHICAL MARKETING Owen M. Panner Inn of Court September 20, 2012 meeting Allison Rhodes Calon Russell Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Lawyers for the Profession 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

16 Oregon RPCs ORPC 7.1 (misleading communication about lawyer) ORPC 7.2 (can pay for advertising/marketing but not for more direct solicitation (exception for lawyer referral services)) ORPC 7.3 (no in-person solicitation unless prospective client is a lawyer, close personal friend, family, or former client (certain exceptions)) ORPC 7.5 (firm name cannot be misleading) 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

17 ORPC 7.1 Specific Prohibitions False expectation of results Comparing Quality of Services Misleading statements re specialization Implying lawyer can influence court Testimonial w/out disclaimer Depicting non-lawyers as lawyers w/out disclaimer Depicting non-clients as clients w/out disclaimer Paraphrasing client s w/out substantiation Dramatization w/out disclaimer 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

18 Read the Rules They apply to in person, print, tv, mail and web We can t stop you from being tacky. Here are some examples of tacky and potentially improper.

19 RPC 7.1(a)(2) False Expectation of Results 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

20 RPC 7.1(a)(2) False Expectation of Results 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

21 RPC 7.1(a)(2) False Expectation of Results Super Lawyer In re Anonymous, 385 S.C. 263 (2009): It s not your fault you were hurt on the job, but I know you re afraid to file a job injury claim. You re afraid your boss won t believe you re really hurt-or worse, that you ll be fired. We ll protect you against these threats-these accusations-and work to protect your job. I m not an actor, I m a lawyer. I m [Anonymous]. Call me and we ll get you the benefits you deserve. The [Law] Firm Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

22 RPC 7.1(a)(3) Tacky and Kind of Awesome 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

23 RPC 7.1(a)(4) Do not let your Mom write your bio 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

24 RPC 7.1(a)(4) Misleading Statement Re Specialization Matter of Shapiro, 7 AD3d 120, 780 NYS2d 680 (4th Dept 2004) (1 year suspension). The commercials depicted respondent as an experienced, aggressive personal injury lawyer who was prepared to take and had taken personal action on behalf of clients. BUT Hadn t practiced or lived in NY since Never tried a case. Only conducted 10 depositions Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

25 RPC 7.1(a)(5) Implying Lawyer Can Influence Court Potential client has filed a pro-se action which has ended up in front of Owen Panner. Potential client finally decides she is in over her head and decides to hire a lawyer. She looks at your bio and sees that you are currently a member of the Owen Panner Inn of Court. She has no idea what that means. What do you say? Alexander v. Cahill, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL (2010) 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

26 RPC 7.1(a)(6) More problems than this title can describe 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

27 RPC 7.1(a)(7) How many lawyers do you really have working for you? 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

28 RPC 7.1(a)(8) Prohibition against bad acting 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

29 RPC 7.1(a)(9) Paraphrasing Clients w/out Substantiation 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

30 RPC 7.1(a)(10) Dramatization w/o Disclaimer 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

31 Allison Rhodes Calon Russell Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 1000 SW Broadway, Ste Portland, OR Office Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.

32 2012 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved.