Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Legal Ethics Forum

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Ethics

: Legal Ethics Forum

Maine rule change helps out law school clinics

ADVERTISEMENTS

Law clinics may be under attack in Maryland and Louisiana, but the Maine Supreme Court has extended a helping hand to law school clinics by adopting a new Rule 1.10(e) that relaxes the usual imputation rules when a lawyer from outside the law school is associated with a law school clinic. The new provision, which took effect on March 1, 2010, states as follows:

Compensatory Grading --SULC

(e) If a lawyer or law student affiliated both with a law school legal clinic and with one or more lawyers outside the clinic is required to decline representation of any client solely by virtue of this Rule 1.10, this rule imposes no disqualification on any other lawyer or law student who would otherwise be disqualified solely by reason of an affiliation with that individual, provided that the originally disqualified individual is screened from all participation in the matter at and outside the clinic. [Emphasis added.]

To see the court's order and an Advisory Committee Note, click here and scroll down to Amendments to the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.10(e) and 8.4) (Eff. March 1, 2010).

Full post as published by Legal Ethics Forum on May 02, 2010 (boomark / email).