ABSTRACT: A New Hampshire public prosecutor may not enter into a referral fee agreement with an active New Hampshire lawyer for matters that arose from the prosecutor’s work as a prosecutor. ANNOTATIONS: A referral fee agreement benefitting
ABSTRACT: In 2007, New Hampshire adopted NHRPC Rule 5.7, which applies to the provision of services that might reasonably be performed in conjunction with, and in substance are related to, the provision of legal services and that
ABSTRACT: Representing a client in a matter funded in whole or in part through donation-based crowdfunding is not unethical per se. Lawyers are encouraged to exercise substantial caution when undertaking a crowdfunded matter, however, as ethical concerns
An inactive lawyer may not enter into a referral fee agreement with an active New Hampshire lawyer for matters that first arose after the change in status because that would violate the restrictions on the practice of law and present a great risk of misrepresentation.
Attorneys may be asked to assist with the wind-up and final disposition of a deceased or incapacitated sole practitioner’s law practice. This article provides guidelines for doing so in compliance with applicable Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rules.
An Attorney who represents a municipal Planning Board and provides advice to the Planning Board on interpreting the Zoning Ordinance in a particular matter, should use extreme caution and carefully evaluate the possibility that a conflict of interest may exist in providing advice to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on the same matter on appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION Uncashed Trust Account Checks Ethics Committee Opinion #2020-21/01 ABSTRACT: New Hampshire attorneys are obligated under the Supreme Court Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct to regularly reconcile their trust accounts. Attorneys
Under Rule 3.5, a New Hampshire lawyer may review a juror’s public social media presence online but may not contact the juror and must avoid any notification that the juror’s social media platform has been accessed by the lawyer. While a lawyer must exercise care, a review of a juror’s social media presence may be ethically required in providing competent representation under Rule 1.1.
When a lawyer receives information from a prospective client which is materially adverse to the interests of the lawyer’s current client, is the lawyer authorized to reveal any information regarding the prospective client to his/her current client, and/or is the lawyer required to withdraw from representing the current client?
Unless one of the exceptions in Rule 1.6 applies, Rule 1.6 prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a client.