Sorted by Commenter - Ethics - State of California

This short California Bar Journal article did not describe, discuss, or mention the
proposed revision to
possibly been mentioned somewhere. However, I certainly never read about it and no
lawyer had previously discussed it with me. , other
than perhaps someone who was a
committee, who in , even
though I have attempted to find
change. Most California lawyers were
to Rule 4-200, referred to as new Rule 1.5(t), had been proposed.
When I , I
relatively small number of members of the California Bar and several bar
about these proposed radical changes. 4 At that time , the public comment window expired
on June 6 2008.
The Commission received a number of comments complaining about the lack of
notice and process. In response to the complaints
been publicized in a manner that permitted , the Commission later
stated:
The proposal was issued for a 90-day public comment period posted on
the State Bar website
Sacramento that was noticed by several methods, including: a posting at the
State Bar website; public notices in the Daily Journal the Daily Recorder
and the Sacramento Bee; e-mail notifications to 000
interested persons; and a press release to the media. See Public Comment
Chart, Exh. I to the Executive Summary.
As far as I knew, not one publication mentioned by the Commission actually discussed
the proposal to ban , 20 I 0, I
from Randall Difuntorum requested copies of what appear to be all
including several different emails, that the
notice of the 2008 proposal to ban nonrefundable
reveals that nowhere in the emails or anywhere else did the Commission ever explicitly
publicize or state that it was going to take up the , let
4 With the 2008 Proposal , the Commission also did not publish any rationale for enacting
this comprehensive change or demonstrate that a need exists to do so.
a comprehensive legal and factual page
March 2008 Discussion Draft of the
Bar website.
144