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

knowingly engage in the practice of law in which he was not competent. We have found no
support in the case law for a suspension for incompetence without other misconduct, such
as dishonesty.
That is not to say we are unconcerned about Orr’s conduct. We have said that “[i]t is
inexcusable for an attorney to attempt any legal procedure without ascertaining the law
governing that procedure.” As a lawyer who has been practicing law for 40 years, Orr
should have been aware that he was not competent to represent franchisors, and he was
warned by another attorney that franchise law was a specialized area. At the very least, Orr
should have done the research necessary to become competent in the area of franchise law.
The fact that Orr did little or no research into state or federal franchising law until long
after he first received notice that there was a problem with the franchising documents is
inexcusable.
We take this opportunity to caution general practitioners against taking on cases in
areas of law with which they have no experience, unless they are prepared to do the
necessary research to become competent in such areas or associate with an attorney who is
competent in such areas. General practitioners must be particularly careful when practicing
in specialty areas. “If a general practitioner plunges into a field in which he or she is not
competent, and as a consequence makes mistakes that demonstrate incompetence, the
[Rules of Professional Conduct] demand that discipline be imposed . . . .”
Problem
4-1. Fox, a renowned divorce lawyer, has 40 years of litigation experience. His last
client lost child custody when the opposing spouse presented several of Client’s public
Facebook postings at trial, including a photo of their child holding a beer captioned
“Following in mama’s footsteps” and two others in which the client posted “Life without
kids is great” and “Stay single and childless.” Fox told Client he had never used Facebook
and “what you put on the internet isn’t my problem.” Is Fox in trouble?
B. Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Model Rules 1.1-1.4 RLGL §§
14, 48, 49, 52
Sickler v. Kirby
805 N.W.2d 675 (Neb. App. 2011)
SIEVERS, Judge.
This is a legal malpractice action in which the district court for Buffalo County granted
summary judgment to the defendant law firm of [Croker Huck], and its member attorney
Robert Kirby (collectively the defendants). . . . [W]e address issues generated by the fact
that the defendants were engaged to represent only a closely held corporation, Baristas &
Friends, Inc. (B & F), while the Kearney, Nebraska, law firm of [Jacobsen Orr] represented
95