[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

that a confidentiality provision in prior litigation precludes an attorney from representing clients in subsequent, similar
litigation. . . . Cardillo v. Bloomfield 206 Corp., 988 A.2d 136, 137 (N.J.App.Div.2010) (“Attorneys may not
circumvent the import of RPC 5.6(b) by stating that the settlement of litigation is separate from the agreement to
restrict the practice of law where the agreements were negotiated contemporaneously and are interconnected.”).
1. Other countries more severely restrict lawyer advertising and solicitation. James Moliterno & George Harris,
Global Issues in Legal Ethics 164-168 (West Academic 2d ed. 2014).
2. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429-430 (1963).
3. United Transp. Union v. St. Bar of Mich., 401 U.S. 576, 585 (1971).
4. In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 428, 431 (1978).
5. C. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 571 (1980).
6. MR 7.3(c).
7. Bates v. St. Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 380-381 (1977).
8. MR 7.4 represents the ABA response to Peel.
9. Ohralik v. Ohio St. Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447, 466 (1978).
10. MR 7.2.
11. MR 7.3.
12. 559 U.S. 229 (2010).
13. Id. at 247.
14. 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
15. 501 U.S. 1030 (1991).
16. For a discussion of the constitutional application of this rule, see In re Shearin, 765 A.2d 930, 937-938 (Del.
2000); In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483, 487-488 (7th Cir. 1995).
17. 496 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1990).
18. Morrow v. St. Bar of Cal., 188 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1999) (requiring membership in State Bar that takes
positions on public issues is not unconstitutional, so long as members who dissent can obtain a refund of the portion of
their mandatory dues used for that purpose).
19. 531 U.S. 533 (2001).
20. Id. at 546.
21. Id. at 545.
22. See The Law Governing Lawyers: Professional Discipline, supra Chapter 2.
23. Sperry v. Fla. ex rel. Fla. Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963).
24. United States ex rel. O’Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 132 F.3d 1252, 1257 (8th Cir. 1998).
25. 28 U.S.C. § 530B (2012). See, e.g., MR 3.8.
26. See The Law Governing Lawyers: Professional Discipline, supra Chapter 2; The Bounds of the Law: Court Orders,
supra Chapter 6.
27. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438 (1979) (lawyer not admitted in a jurisdiction who seeks admission pro hac vice has no
right to appear and need not be afforded any procedural due process if the motion is denied).
28. See, e.g., Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975, 980 (1st Cir. 1989); Fuller v. Diesslin, 868 F.2d 604,
607-608 (3d Cir. 1989); Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 513 A.2d 1211, 1214 (Conn. 1986).
29. See, e.g., United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990).
3. Ethics opinions from other states have reached conflicting conclusions on whether certain services constitute
permissible advertising or improper recommendations. . . .
4. Permissible factors include information about the practice areas, the jurisdictions and courts where the attorney is
admitted or regularly practices, years of experience, and hourly rates. Impermissible factors include payment of a fee for
preference in referrals or payment of a fee for all referrals in a geographic area.
1. See Lawyers and Clients: Service Pro Bono Publico, supra Chapter 3, nn. 2, 4.
2. The European Court of Justice has ruled that the attorney-client privilege is not available to inside counsel because
lawyer-employees are not sufficiently independent. See Case C-550/07, Akzo Novel Chemical Ltd. v. European
Comm’n, 2010 E.C.R. I-08301; see also Australian Mining & Smelting Europe, Ltd. v. Commission, [1982] C.M.L.R.
264 (attorney-client privilege does not protect communications between corporate officials and inside counsel).
3. See Practice Pointers: Implementing an Effective Conflicts Control System, supra Chapter 11; Janine Griffiths-Baker
& Nancy J. Moore, Regulating Conflicts of Interest in Global Law Firms: Peace in Our Time?, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 2541
489