Like most workplaces, law firms faced an unprecedented situation in 2020 that has continued into 2021. First, they had to implement a system for …Back to the Office After COVID-19: How are Law Firms Preparing for It?
The Oregon Judicial Department is launching a new service in all three Central Oregon counties to provide case parties with the opportunity to receive text message reminders for court hearings and changes.
The goal is to improve communication with parties directly involved in the case – including defendants, petitioners, respondents, and others – and reduce instances of “failure to appear.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) will soon begin rolling out a new electronic system for case management and electronic filing (e-filing…Statewide Electronic Filing is on the Way to Washington Courts
The COLOP eMark and eMark Create are astonishingly fast mobile printers you have to see to believe.
- Lightening fast
- Operated by an app
- Based on HP inkjet color technology
- Automated date, time, and numbering functions
Overall a simple, portable solution for labeling and organizational needs. Comes with templates and PC data transfer ability via USB cables. Learn more here.
Earlier this month, the Washington Supreme Court approved amendments to the RPCs permitting in-person solicitation and use of the designation of “specialist” in lawyer advertising. Below are the highlights, courtesy of NW Sidebar.
RPC 7.1, which requires truthfulness in all lawyer marketing communications regardless of the form, remains. The comments to RPC 7.1, in turn, are expanded to address advertising generally, specialization and law firm names that formerly resided in now-eliminated rules: respectively, former RPCs 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5. Of note in an age when most lawyers focus their practices narrowly, Comment 8 to RPC 7.1 now permits lawyers to specifically state that they are “specialists”—as long as that is true.
RPC 7.3, which governs in-person solicitation, is also reduced to its constitutional core and now generally permits in-person solicitation unless the contact is misleading, the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical or mental state of the person contacted impairs their judgment on employing legal counsel, or the solicitation amounts to harassment (including instances where the target informed the lawyer they did not wish to be contacted).
The package of amendments retains the general prohibition on paying for referrals outright but moves that provision to RPC 7.3(b). An accompanying technical amendment to RPC 5.5 makes clear that law firms can continue to practice across state lines.
Will Oregon follow suit? With COVID-19, it isn’t likely any Washington lawyers will take immediate advantage of the new leniency in solicitation. More pertinent for now is the ability to call yourself a specialist if you truly are.