On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Ethical Issues in California Pro Bono Representation 2017 (Free)

Released on: Sep. 11, 2017
Running Time: 03:11:05

While the ethical obligations of pro bono legal practice are no different than a commercial law practice, there are practical considerations regarding eligibility of clients, challenging clients, conflicts (similar in theory, different in practice settings), expectations on both sides, case management responsibility, and different delivery models, such as limited scope representation, that cause many professionals to hesitate to offer pro bono legal services. This program is designed to answer questions regarding the ethical obligations of pro bono legal service, encourage attorneys to engage in this professionally rewarding aspect of law practice, and remove ambiguities that are barriers to engaging in pro bono legal services.

Attorneys knowledgeable about  professional responsibility and pro bono service, who work in legal services, law firms, private bar programs and in-house corporate law departments will discuss the application of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and, where relevant, the Proposed California Rules of Professional Conduct to pro bono legal service in different settings. The faculty will begin with the basics of pro bono, including the definition of “Pro Bono” for lawyers, why it is considered an important part of the profession, and ethical concerns unique to pro bono, as opposed to the commercial practice of law.

The faculty will also address emerging ethical issues in developing areas, such as pro bono clinics, incubators, pro bono in Federal courts, and the impact of technology in pro bono legal services.

Finally, the faculty will discuss hypothetical fact patterns to illustrate the application of the rules.

Law firm pro bono coordinators and partners, law firm associates, legal services pro bono coordinators, solos, small and medium firm attorneys engaged in pro bono legal services, court-based program administrators for self-represented litigants, judges, and everyone interested in access to justice, will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:11:05]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:11:28]
    Tiela Chalmers
  • Pro Bono Rules; Commencing and Conducting the Representation [01:58:52]
    Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler, Toby J. Rothschild, Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Phong S. Wong
  • Specific Application of Ethical Rules and Issues to Various Pro Bono Practice Settings – Hypotheticals [01:00:45]
    Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler, Toby J. Rothschild, Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Phong S. Wong

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • California Business & Professions Code Section 6068
    Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Phong S. Wong, Toby J. Rothschild, Renee Glover Chantler, Tiela Chalmers
  • State Bar of California Pro Bono Resolution (2002)
    Phong S. Wong, Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler, Toby J. Rothschild
  • Current California Rules of Professional Conduct
    Jonathan McNeil Wong, Phong S. Wong, Christopher M. Tirrell, Toby J. Rothschild, Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler
  • Proposed California Rules of Professional Conduct (2017)
    Phong S. Wong, Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler, Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Toby J. Rothschild
  • How to Get Started with Pro Bono Service
    Phong S. Wong, Laura Riley
  • Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators Resolution 5—Reaffirming the Commitment to Meaningful Access to Justice for All
    Toby J. Rothschild
  • Segal v. State Bar of California, 44 Cal.3d 1077 (1988)
    Toby J. Rothschild
  • Nichols v. Keller, 15 Cal.App.4th 1672 (1993)
    Toby J. Rothschild
  • An Ethics Primer on Limited Scope Representation, The State Bar of California, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct
    Renee Glover Chantler, Phong S. Wong, Tiela Chalmers, Toby J. Rothschild, Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong
  • The State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion No. 2010-179
    Christopher M. Tirrell, Tiela Chalmers, Toby J. Rothschild, Phong S. Wong, Renee Glover Chantler, Jonathan McNeil Wong
  • The State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion No. 2012-184
    Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Phong S. Wong, Toby J. Rothschild, Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler
  • California Rules of Court—Rule 9.45 Registered Legal Services Attorneys
    Phong S. Wong, Toby J. Rothschild, Christopher M. Tirrell, Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler, Jonathan McNeil Wong
  • California Rules of Court—Rule 9.46 Registered In-House Counsel
    Christopher M. Tirrell, Toby J. Rothschild, Tiela Chalmers, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Renee Glover Chantler, Phong S. Wong
  • The Ethics of Pro Bono, County Bar Update, April 2005, Vol. 25, No. 4
    Toby J. Rothschild
  • Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) Pro Bono Policy and Commentary to Pro Bono Policy, Adopted by the Board of Trustees on August 26, 2016
    Toby J. Rothschild
  • Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) Pro Bono Policy and Commentary to Pro Bono Policy, Adopted by the Board of Trustees on November 18, 2016
    Toby J. Rothschild
  • Los Angeles County Bar Association, Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee—Formal Opinion No. 502 “Lawyers’ Duties When Preparing Pleadings or Negotiating Settlement for In Pro Per Litigant” (November 4, 1999)
    Toby J. Rothschild

Presentation Material


  • Ethical Issues in California Pro Bono Representation (PowerPoint slides)
    Tiela Chalmers, Renee Glover Chantler, Toby J. Rothschild, Christopher M. Tirrell, Jonathan McNeil Wong, Phong S. Wong
  • Ethical Issues in California Pro Bono Representation - Detailed Program Outline
    Tiela Chalmers
  • MCLE Opportunities through Nonprofit Legal Services Organizations
    Phong S. Wong
Chairperson(s)
Tiela Chalmers ~ Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel, Alameda County Bar Association and Volunteer Legal Services Corporation
Speaker(s)
Renee Glover Chantler ~ Principal, Chantler Law Offices
Toby J. Rothschild ~ Of Counsel, OneJustice
Christopher M. Tirrell ~ Associate Commercial Counsel for X, Google
Jonathan McNeil Wong ~ Partner, Donahue Fitzgerald LLP
Phong S. Wong ~ Pro Bono Director, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Ethical Issues in California Pro Bono Representation 2017 Tiela Chalmers, Alameda County Bar Association and Volunteer Legal Services Corporation
 
Ethical Issues in California Pro Bono Representation 2016 Tiela Chalmers, Alameda County Bar Association
 
Share
Email
Excellent program bringing up issues I never expected to hear.

- E. Eugene Summerford, Private Practice

I have done a lot of pro bono work over the years.  This program was very useful in revisiting ethical concerns and issues I've seen in the past and in identifying potential concerns and issues I may encounter in the future.

- Donald R.

The hypotheticals were amazing! Exactly the kind of real world examples I needed for our growing practice. Thanks!
- Omowunmi Odedere, Managing Attorney/Solo Practitioner
  Williams Law Firm


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.