On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Ethical Issues in Pro Bono Representation 2015

Released on: Dec. 14, 2015
Running Time: 02:08:01

As part of PLI’s commitment to public service and the pro bono activities of the legal community, there is no fee to attend this program.

Using a lively, interactive format, Ethical Issues in Pro Bono Representation 2015 will examine everyday issues of ethics and professional responsibility in pro bono and public interest practice. 

You will learn:

Within the context of pro bono representation, using “all-new” hypotheticals as the basis of discussion, this program will review issues concerning:

  • The attorney-client relationship
  • Who is the client?
  • Client misconduct
  • Confidentiality, conflicts of interest and privilege
  • Dealing with pro se adversaries and other third parties
  • Ethical issues faced by firm and in-house counsel undertaking pro bono activities
  • Collaboration with nonlawyers
  • Unauthorized practice of law (either by misusing non-lawyer assistants or by practicing outside one's, own jurisdiction)
  • Limited scope representation

Lecture Topics [Total time 02:08:01]

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


  • Introduction* [00:02:09]
    Professor Bruce A. Green, Louis S. Sartori
  • Ethical Issues in Pro Bono Representation [02:05:51]
    Professor Bruce A. Green, Louis S. Sartori, Janet Sabel, Jennifer L. Kroman, Randye Retkin, Erin M. Correale

Presentation Material


  • Table of Contents, Schedule, Faculty Bios
    Professor Bruce A. Green, Louis S. Sartori
  • New York Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Hypothetical 1
    Jennifer L. Kroman
  • The Law Governing Lawyers - §99 A Represented Nonclient - The General Anti-Contact Rule (May 12, 1998)
    The American Law Institute at Washington, D.C.
  • Opinion 02-5 (March 7, 2003)
    Professional Ethics of the Florida Bar
  • Ethics Opinion 1010 (July 21, 2014)
    New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
  • Ethics Opinion 1067 (July 27, 2015)
    New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
  • Hypothetical 2
    Randye Retkin
  • How Bioethics Can Enrich Medical-Legal Collaborations
  • Hearing Stories Already Told: Successfully Incorporating Third Party Professionals into the Attorney-Client Relationship
  • Hypothetical 3
    Janet Sabel
  • Opinion 633 (May 3, 1992)
    New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
  • Opinion 664 (June 3, 1994)
    New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
  • Formal Opinion 1995-12 (July 6, 1995)
    The Association of the Bar of the City of New York
  • Opinion 822 (June 27, 2008)
    New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
  • Opinion 837 (March 16, 2010)
    New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
  • Opinion 992 (November 13, 2013)
    New York State Bar Association
  • The Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct - Excerpts
  • Hypothetical 4
    Louis S. Sartori
  • Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law
  • Rule 6.5 Participation in Limited Pro Bono Legal Services Programs
  • DR-103 [1200.22] Avoiding Acquisition of Interest in Litigation
  • Limited Scope Legal Services Declaration of Understanding of Services Rendered
  • Hypothetical 5
    Professor Bruce A. Green
  • The Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct - Excerpts
  • 2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 7 (January 16, 2004)
    North Carolina State Bar
Co-Chair(s)
Professor Bruce A. Green ~ Director and Louis Stein Professor, Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics, Fordham University School of Law
Louis S. Sartori ~ Director, Pro Bono Practice, The Legal Aid Society
Speaker(s)
Erin M. Correale ~ Compliance Director, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Jennifer L. Kroman ~ Director of Pro Bono Practice, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Randye Retkin ~ Director and Founder, LegalHealth, New York Legal Assistance Group
Janet Sabel ~ Chief Deputy to the New York State Attorney General, New York State Attorney General Office (for institutional affiliational purposes only)
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.

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 6 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 “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional 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.


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 cleadministrator@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 cleadministrator@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.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Print Share Email
"I continue to be thoroughly impressed with PLI. The quality of the presenters and the discussion for this presentation is phenomenal. The benefit to my practice is tangible and immediate. Thank you very much."
- 2014 webcast attendee

"This was an excellent seminar with practical advice using hypotheticals, which was very useful."
- 2014 webcast attendee

"This was great. I appreciated the varying opinions, collegiality and humor of the group. Tough questions, good hypotheticals. Thank you."
- 2014 webcast attendee


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

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.