Ethics

A magistrate judge in Manhattan rejected Gucci's claim of attorney client privilege for communications between company officers and inhouse "lawyer" Jonathan Moss, who is a law graduate (Fordham 1993) and was a member of the CA bar until 1996 or 1997, and then became inactive. The MJ said that  Gucci failed to check his bar status and was therefore unreasonable.

This decision is wrong. Gucci officers acted reasonably. The fact that they COULD easily have discovered his inactive status (stressed in the opinion and by Guess?) doesn't mean they were unreasonable in accepting that he was a lawyer under the facts of the case. And a lawyer can be inactive one place and active elsewhere. 

Moss had originally been referred to Gucci in 2002 as an inhouse hire by an outside firm (Patton Boggs) and had been practicing at Gucci since, rising to vice president and director of legal services. So he acted and sounded like a real lawyer and except for the stupidity of practicing while inactive in the only state where he had been admitted, he could have fooled anyone. 

One wonders: How many law firms would check his status if he had sought to move to a firm? 

A lawyer can let his status lapse anytime. Active today, inactive tomorrow. Is there an ongoing need periodically to check status?

The district judge gets the final say. I hope she rejects the conclusion.  The idea that checking status on these facts is required for reasonable client behavior is wrong IMHO. 

That aside, Moss is in deep yoghurt. He created this risk for his client. What if any future can he possibly have now?