Advisory Ethics Opinions to be modified or withdrawn by Professional Ethics Committee
The Professional Ethics Committee will consider withdrawing or modifying Florida Ethics Opinions 66-5, 66-13, 77-23, and 88-11 (Reconsideration) at its meeting on Thursday, January 14, 2021. Summaries of these opinions appear below. Pursuant to Rule 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on modification or withdrawal of these opinions. The committee will consider any comments received at the meeting above. Comments must contain the opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, or emailed to [email protected], and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication.
Florida Ethics Opinion 66-5 concludes: An attorney employed by the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier to act for an injured minor in concluding a settlement agreed upon by the carrier and the minor’s parents should be sensitive to adverse influences and conflicting interests.
Florida Ethics Opinion 66-13 concludes: An assistant state attorney should not, as a private practitioner, represent a husband in a divorce suit when the state attorney’s office has brought support proceedings on behalf of the wife against the husband.
Florida Ethics Opinion 77-23 concludes: An attorney engaged by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may not ethically represent, in actions for back child support payments, both wife A against former husband A, and wife B, who is husband A’s second wife, against former husband B, because of actual or potential conflicts of interest and because of the appearance of impropriety.
Florida Ethics Opinion 88-11 (Reconsideration) concludes: A law firm that is discharged by a client before the client’s litigation is concluded may assert a retaining lien against the case file until costs advanced on behalf of the client are either reimbursed or guaranteed. However, if the law firm and client have agreed that the client’s repayment of costs is contingent on the outcome of the matter, then the law firm may not ethically assert a retaining lien for outstanding costs prior to the occurrence of the contingency. Similarly, a law firm may not assert a retaining lien for fees owed in a contingent fee case until the contingency has occurred.
