Ethics Opinions Substantively Affected by the Amended Rules

Ethics Opinions Substantively Affected by the Amended Rules (Effective 2/1/07)

Effective February 1, 2007, the D.C. Court of Appeals amended the D.C. 这是自1月1日《靠谱的足球滚球平台》生效以来最全面的一次修订, 1991. Although the vast majority of opinions issued by the D.C. 在修订后的规则生效日期之前的靠谱的滚球平台职业道德委员会(“委员会”)基本上不受修订的影响, there are some that simply no longer provide complete guidance in light of the recent changes. It is critical, therefore, 任何从委员会意见中寻求指导的人都应特别注意自该意见发表以来《靠谱的滚球平台》或《靠谱的足球滚球平台》在相关方面发生变化的可能性. Some of the changes are “non-substantive,” such as the renumbering of a Rule section or a Comment. In these circumstances, the Committee opinion remains valid, even though a particular citation to a Rule or a Comment may no longer be consistent with the current version. The Committee urges anyone consulting an opinion to read it in light of the revised Rules and Comments. In the table below, the Committee has identified those opinions that, in its judgment, are substantively affected by the amended Rules:

Opinions Substantively Affected by the Amended Rules (Effective 2/1/07)
Opinion	Relevant Changes
Opinion 211: Fee Agreements; Mandatory Arbitration Clauses	D.C. Rule 1.已修订第8(g)(2)款，以澄清靠谱的滚球平台可就渎职行为提出索赔或可能提出索赔的条件. 评注[13]现在解释说，该规则并不禁止靠谱的滚球平台与委托人就法律事故索赔达成强制仲裁协议, and there is no requirement that the client have separate counsel before such an agreement is permissible.
Opinion 212在代表前客户的靠谱的滚球平台离开靠谱的滚球平台事务所后，靠谱的滚球平台事务所在重大相关事项中对前客户不利的代理	D.C. Rule 1.第10(c)条现在允许靠谱的滚球平台事务所代表一个人，他的利益直接与以前与靠谱的滚球平台事务所有联系的靠谱的滚球平台所代表的客户的利益相反, so long as none of the remaining lawyers has any information protected by D.C. Rule 1.6 that is material to the matter.
Opinion 217: Multiple Representation; Intermediation	D.C. Rule 2.2 has been eliminated, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. Rule 1.7.
Opinion 218: Retainer Agreement Providing for Mandatory Arbitration of Fee Disputes Is Not Unethical	Comment [1] to D.C. Rule 1.第8条现在解释说(a)款的要求不适用于委托人和靠谱的滚球平台之间的一般费用安排, which are governed by D.C. Rule 1.5. Moreover, Comment [13] to D.C. Rule 1.8 now explains that D.C. Rule 1.8 generally permits lawyers to enter into agreements to arbitrate any legal malpractice claim.
Opinion 219: Conflict of Ethical Obligations	D.C. Rule 1.6(d)现在允许其服务被用于推动犯罪或欺诈的靠谱的滚球平台在某些情况下透露客户的机密和秘密，以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户犯罪或欺诈造成的伤害. Because a lawyer is now permitted to make certain disclosures under D.C. Rule 1.6, the disclosure obligations under D.C. Rules 4.1(b) and 3.3(d) – both of which are expressly made subject to the obligations under D.C. Rule 1.6 – may now be broader.
Opinion 232: Multiple Clients/Criminal Matter	D.C. Rule 1.第7(c)条已被修订，以要求每个可能受影响的客户对第(b)条禁止的代理提供知情同意，并且靠谱的滚球平台有理由相信靠谱的滚球平台能够为每个受影响的客户提供称职和勤勉的代理.
Opinion 238: Written Fee Agreements	D.C. Rule 1.第5(b)条已被修订，要求书面收费协议不仅要说明收费的基础或费率，还要说明靠谱的滚球平台代理的范围和客户将负责的费用.
Opinion 243: Joint Representation in Divorce Cases	D.C. Rule 2.2 has been eliminated, and the discussion of intermediation and common representation has been moved to Comments [14] through [18] of D.C. Rule 1.7.
Opinion 253: Referral Fee Arrangement Between Law Firms and Insurance Companies	D.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. As a result, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, the discussion about the relationship between the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers in D.C. Rule 5.4 and the provision in D.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5) that had permitted lawyers to pay referral fees to intermediaries under certain conditions.
Opinion 264: Refunds of Special Retainers; Commingling of Such Funds with the General Funds of the Law Firm Upon Receipt	D.C. Rule 1.15(d) has been revised significantly since this opinion was issued. Most particularly, D.C. Rule 1.15(d) now provides that advances of unearned fees and unincurred costs shall be treated as property of the client. The opinion’s contrary determination was based on a prior version of D.C. Rule 1.15(d).[1]
Opinion 273: Ethical Considerations of Lawyers Moving from One Private Law Firm to Another	D.C. Rule 1.第10条(c)款现在允许靠谱的滚球平台事务所代表与前客户的利益严重不利的人，在与前关联靠谱的滚球平台代表客户的事务相同或实质性相关的事务中，而其余靠谱的滚球平台都没有任何受D保护的信息.C. Rule 1.6 that is material to the matter. The opinion’s contrary conclusion was based on the prior version of D.C. Rule 1.10(c).
Opinion 275收到保密信息会妨碍其他客户在同一或实质性相关事项上的后续代理，除非可以竖起屏障	D.C. Rule 1.10(a) no longer contains the potential-client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. That exception is now contained in a new rule, D.C. Rule 1.18(d).
Opinion 279: Availability of Screening as Cure for Imputed Disqualification	D.C. Rule 1.10(a) no longer contains the potential client exception to the imputed disqualification of a law firm. That exception is now contained in a new rule, D.C. Rule 1.18(d).
Opinion 286: Contingent Referral Fees	D.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. 该意见中关于《靠谱的滚球平台》如何标志着背离先前的道德法并授权为介绍法律业务向他人支付某些费用的讨论已不再适用.
Opinion 294: Sale of Law Practice by Retiring Lawyer	D.C. Rule 1.17 is new and governs the sale of a law practice. 该规则(连同评注[10])授权出售靠谱的滚球平台业务，只要该出售不是通过向转让客户收取的费用增加来融资，并且转让靠谱的滚球平台与客户之间关于费用和工作范围的现有安排得到了购买靠谱的滚球平台的遵守.
Opinion 296: Joint Representation: Confidentiality of Information	D.C. Rule 2.2 has been eliminated, and Comments [14]-[18] to D.C. Rule 1.7 have been added to address special considerations in common representation. Moreover, D.C. Rule 1.6(d)现在允许其服务被用于推动犯罪或欺诈的靠谱的滚球平台在某些情况下透露客户的机密和秘密，以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户犯罪或欺诈造成的伤害.
Opinion 299: Duty of Confidentiality to the Corporate Client That Has Ceased Operations	D.C. Rule 1.6(d)现在允许其服务被用于推动犯罪或欺诈的靠谱的滚球平台在某些情况下透露客户的机密和秘密，以防止犯罪或欺诈或减轻客户犯罪或欺诈造成的伤害.
Opinion 302: Soliciting Plaintiffs for Class Action Lawsuits or Obtaining Legal Work Through Internet-Based Web Pages	D.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. As a result, 意见的一部分不再适用-特别是关于靠谱的滚球平台在支付费用参加基于网络的招标服务以满足D的条件时必须采取的步骤的讨论.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5).
Opinion 306: Practicing Law While Simultaneously Selling Insurance	D.C. Rule 5.7 is new. 它规定，靠谱的滚球平台在提供可能与提供法律服务相结合并与之有关的合理服务时，应遵守《靠谱的足球滚球平台》. This opinion remains consistent with D.C. Rule 5.7, but it relied only on Comment [25] (now renumbered [36]) to D.C. Rule 1.7 for the conclusion that a lawyer may sell insurance products to clients so long as the lawyer makes full disclosure, obtains consent, and concludes that his or her professional judgment on behalf of the client will not be adversely affected.
Opinion 307: Participation in Government Program Requiring Payment of Percentage of Fee	D.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5) has been eliminated. As a result, a portion of the opinion is no longer applicable – specifically, 关于靠谱的滚球平台为满足D项条件而付费参加政府运营的法律服务计划时必须采取的步骤的讨论.C. Rule 7.1(b)(5).
Opinion 311: Choice-of-Law Rules for Professional Conduct in Non-Judicial Proceedings	D.C. Rule 8.5(b)(1)现在更广泛地适用于与“法庭未决事项”有关的行为，而不仅仅是与“靠谱的滚球平台被允许执业的法庭程序”有关的行为.”
Opinion 329: Nonprofit Organization Fee Arrangement with an Attorney to Whom It Refers Matters	D.C. Rule 5.4(a)(5) now provides that a lawyer may share legal fees with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained, 或根据《靠谱的滚球平台》第501(c)(3)条规定免税的靠谱的滚球平台的推荐雇佣. 该意见要求只允许补偿非营利组织的自付费用，而不提供所收取费用的一部分，鉴于D.C. Rule 5.4(a)(5) now expressly authorizes the sharing of legal fees under these circumstances.

[1]When Opinion 264 was published in 1996, D.C. Rule 1.15(d) provided that “[a]dvances of legal fees and costs become the property of the lawyer upon receipt. 根据规则1的规定，在靠谱的滚球平台服务终止时，任何未赚到的预付费用必须退还给委托人.16(d).” The D.C. Court of Appeals amended D.C. Rule 1.15(d), effective January 1, 2000, to clarify that, “[a]未赚取的费用和未发生的费用的垫款在赚取或发生之前，应按照第(a)款视为客户的财产，除非客户同意另一种安排.” Although the D.C. Court of Appeals also made some minor modifications to D.C. Rule 1.15(d) in the most recent amendments that became effective on February 1, 2007, the earlier amendments to the rule are the ones directly relevant to Opinion 264.