A CLE program at the ABA Business Law Section’s 2026 Fall Meeting transformed legal ethics education into an engaging experience by blending Chicago film references with core professional conduct rules. The session, titled The Rules Brothers (and Sisters): A Chicago-Style Review of Basic Legal Ethics Rules of Professional Conduct, used iconic movie lines to clarify ethical obligations for business lawyers.
Moderated by Sanford P. Shatz of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, the panel featured A.J. Singleton (Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC), Amy Richardson (Maynard Nexsen PC and Duke University), Shawn Garrett (Garrett PLLC), and Ashley Stasak (Marshall Dennehey, P.C.). To set a playful yet serious tone, three panelists wore sunglasses inspired by The Blues Brothers, merging humor with substantive legal discussion.
Competence: No ‘Fake It’ Allowed
The program opened with a line from Home Alone-“You’re what the French call ‘les incompétents'”-to emphasize ABA Model Rule 1.1, which requires lawyers to provide competent representation. Stasak stressed that competence is not about pretending to know more than one does. Lawyers are obligated to learn the subject area before providing representation in it if they are not familiar with it.
Singleton warned that once a lawyer commits to a client‘s expectations, withdrawing becomes legally and professionally difficult. The panel also addressed competency in using generative AI, distinguishing between knowing how to operate the tool and the ability to assess AI-generated work. Shatz and Richardson cited cases where lawyers faced disciplinary action for relying on AI-generated citations-including fabricated judicial decisions-without proper verification.
Organizational Clients: Who’s Really the Client?
When representing an entity, lawyers serve as stewards for the organization itself, as outlined in ABA Model Rule 1.13. The panel used quotes from Eight Men Out and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation to break down the rule’s requirements. Richardson summarized two key duties: reporting up-disclosing violations to higher-ups within the organization under Rule 1.13(b)-and reporting out-the option to disclose to external authorities under Rule 1.13(c). Singleton noted that seeking independent legal advice can help protect such communications under attorney-client privilege.
The discussion also covered state-specific variations, particularly when lawyers represent government entities, where definitions of the “client” may differ. The panel addressed a frequent gray area: whether employees are considered clients. Stasak referenced Clark Griswold’s shock in Christmas Vacation—“Surprised, Eddie? If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn’t be more surprised than I am right now”—to illustrate that employees are not automatically clients unless joint representation is formally structured with conflict waivers.
Garrett examined ABA Model Rule 1.13(f), which requires lawyers to clarify the client’s identity when organizational interests conflict with those of constituents. He cited Singleton’s 2021 co-authored article on identifying clients in unformed entities, observing that only a few states allow representing entities that do not yet legally exist. The attorney-client privilege in such cases belongs to the organization, not its employees or constituents. The panel also discussed the complexities in tripartite representation—with Stasak using the example of her day job to illustrate tripartite representation involving insurance carrier, policyholder, and attorney.
Attorney-Client Privilege: Limits and Waivers
The panel clarified that attorney-client privilege applies only to communications made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. Shatz noted that the privilege does not extend to underlying facts disclosed during those discussions. Richardson warned that sharing confidential client information with generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, automatically waives privilege, as these platforms lack necessary protections. Stasak echoed that the shared information is discoverable, as Richardson and Singleton said, “That’s a waiver.” Shatz also reminded the audience that “reply all” in email communications can jeopardize attorney-client privilege.
Singleton highlighted the importance of confidentiality agreements when lawyers switch firms. He advised limiting court-ordered disclosures as much as possible, such as by requesting in-chambers discussions, to reduce exposure. The panel also distinguished between current and former clients under Rules 1.6 and 1.9. While Rule 1.9 permits using information about a former client if it has become public, Rule 1.6 contains no such exception for current clients. As Singleton put it, “just because something is generally known about your current client” it doesn’t mean you can disclose it.
Confidentiality: Exceptions and Professional Obligations
Singleton framed the discussion around ABA Model Rule 1.6 with a line from The Untouchables: “What are you prepared to do?” The rule mandates that lawyers preserve client confidences unless an exception applies. The panel reviewed Rule 1.6(b), which permits disclosure in limited circumstances, such as to prevent death or substantial bodily harm, or to stop a client from committing a crime or fraud likely to cause significant financial injury to others. Richardson noted that client consent under Rule 1.6(a) remains the safest basis for disclosure, but lawyers must document such consent to avoid later disputes.
The obligation to maintain confidentiality extends beyond active representation. Under Rule 1.9, lawyers must continue protecting information relating to former clients unless it has become widely known. However, the panel clarified that the “generally known” exception does not apply to current clients, meaning even widely reported facts about an ongoing matter cannot be disclosed without authorization. Singleton illustrated this with a hypothetical: if a client’s financial misconduct appears in headlines, the lawyer still cannot share internal details without violating Rule 1.6.
Leave a Reply