21. (New) ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)
• It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . (g) engage in conduct that
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or
discrimination
• on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age,
sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status
• in conduct related to the practice of law.
• This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or
withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.
• This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy
consistent with these Rules.
21
24. 24
12/27/16, 3)12 PMAre US Lawyers a Weak Link in the Fight Against Money Laundering | The American Lawyer
NOT FOR REPRINT
Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
Page printed from: The American Lawyer
Are US Lawyers a Weak Link in the Fight
Against Money Laundering?
Susan Beck, The Am Law Daily
December 22, 2016
Earlier this month, for the first time in 10 years, an intergovernmental organization called the
Financial Action Task Force graded the United States on its efforts to combat money laundering
and terrorist financing. The group, which includes government representatives from more than 30
countries, gave the U.S. the lowest possible score in five of the 51 categories it uses to judge
countries' efforts.
The five categories had one thing in common. They each singled out the activities of American
lawyers.
This isn't surprising. Going back to 2002, when Congress floated new rules to identify money
laundering in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the American Bar Association has staunchly
opposed any federal legislation that would require lawyers to help identify money laundering or
terrorist financing. Banks and other financial institutions must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act,
which imposes stringent "know your customer" rules and requires that suspicious transaction be
reported to federal authorities.
25. 25
Search Here...
March-April 2017 Journal of The Missouri Bar Home Page (/journal/marapr2017/)
The Ethics of Client Trust Accounts: Fr equently Asked QuestionsThe Ethics of Client Trust Accounts: Fr equently Asked Questions
by Melinda J. Bentley[1]
Some of the most frequently asked questions of the Legal Ethics Counsel office focus on how to comply with ethical
obligations related to handling client trust accounts. Lawyers are often wary of making a misstep with their client
trust accounts, but by instituting sound accounting practices within their offices in accordance with Rules 4-1.145 –
4-1.155, lawyers should be able to readily comply with their safekeeping obligations. To assist lawyers with meeting
these obligations, this article will provide answers to some of the most frequently asked ethics questions.
Q: How do I find out if m y financial institutionQ: How do I find out if m y financial institution is appr oved to hold client trust accounts?is appr oved to hold client trust accounts?
A: There are two steps by which financial institutions may be approved to hold client trust accounts. First, the
financial institution must be deemed “eligible” by the Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation in accordance with
the requirements of Rule 4-1.145.[2] Second, the financial institution must be “approved” by the Advisory
Committee pursuant to the regulation it has adopted, which includes overdraft reporting to the Office of Chief
Disciplinary Counsel.[3] To find out if a financial institution is approved to hold client trust accounts, you may view
the list published at www.Mo-Legal-Ethics.org (http://www.Mo-Legal-Ethics.org).
Q: What do I do when I r eceive a paym ent thr oughQ: What do I do when I r eceive a paym ent thr ough an instrum ent that contains both earned feesan instrum ent that contains both earned fees
and advance paym ent of fees andand advance paym ent of fees and expenses?expenses?
A: Rule 4-1.15(a)(4) requires that receipts be deposited intact, so you cannot make a split deposit.[4] The proper
way to handle this situation is to deposit the full amount into the trust account. Once the funds have become
“good funds,” meaning the funds have actually been collected by the financial institution in which the trust account
Governance/Bylaws/MoBar%20Bylaws.pdf)
ectory/The_Missouri_Bar_Staff.htm)
27. Basic Rule on Handling Funds Paid for
Legal Services
27
PaymentPayment Payment
Trust
Account
Operating
Account
Fee EarnedWork starts
28. Receiving Funds
Method of Payment
Actual Receipt of
Funds
Risk of Unilateral
Cancelation or
Withdrawal
Amount received
Cash Immediate None Amount paid
Check
Minimum of several
days and up to two
weeks,* presuming
no attempt to "stop
payment"
None
(after funds are
received)
Amount paid
Credit Card Several days
Considerable – often
for six months (or
more)
Amount paid less
fees
Electronic Fund
Transfer
Immediate None Amount paid
29. Credit Cards
• Payments after earned
– Funds go into operating account
– All fees and "chargebacks" (canceled payments) come out of
operating account
– You can use whatever system you want
• Payment in advance (before earned)
– Funds go into trust account
– What about fees and "chargebacks" (canceled payments)?
• Lawyer specific processing: all charges come out of operating account
• Non-lawyer specific: have to keep track of all money going both ways,
and chargebacks may cause overdrafts
– My advice: TOO DANGEROUS, DON'T DO IT – use a Lawyer-specific processing
system
29
31. 31
1/8/17, 9(45 PMChinese Nationals Charged With Hacking Firms to Steal M A Info | The American Lawyer
NOT FOR REPRINT
Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
Page printed from: The American Lawyer
Chinese Nationals Charged With Hacking
Firms to Steal M&A Info
Mark Hamblett, The Am Law Daily
December 27, 2016
Three Chinese nationals face federal charges for allegedly hacking into two major U.S. law firms in
a scheme to trade on information about imminent mergers and acquisitions.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York announced Tuesday that Iat
Hong, Bo Zheng and Hung Chin have been charged with infiltrating the servers of two law firms in
2014 and 2015 and accessing nonpublic information about pending deals. According to Bharara's
office, the information was used in trades that reaped roughly $4 million in illegal profits.
The indictment unsealed Tuesday does not name the law firms, which are referred to as Law Firm
1 and Law Firm 2. According to the charges, Law Firm 1 advised Intel Corp. on its 2015 acquisition
of Altera Corp. for $16.7 billion and represented a company that was in deal talks with InterMune
Inc., which sold to Roche AG in 2014 for $8.9 billion.
The second major law firm advised Pitney Bowes Inc. in the 2015 acquisition of New York-based e-
commerce company Borderfree, the indictment states.
Based on those details the two firms appear to be Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, firms where cyberbreaches previously were reported. Weil represented Intel in the Altera
37. 37
“A lawyer generally may transmit information
relating to the representation of a client over
the Internet without violating the Model
Rules of Professional Conduct where the
lawyer has undertaken reasonable efforts to
prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access…
