The Ethics of Cannabis Legal Representation
Presented by Jeffrey S. Gard
Watch This Course for Free!
New LexVid members can watch their 1st course for free. No credit card needed, just create an account and you'll receive your certificate immediately after watching your free course.
Already a member? Sign in
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Course Description
Length: 1h 3min Published: 8/17/2020 
Attorneys practicing cannabis have to reconcile the federal prohibition against cannabis with the increasing number of state laws allowing cannabis for medial and recreational use. Walking this tightrope presents a number of ethical traps that attorneys need to be aware of. In this program, cannabis attorney Jeffrey Gard covers the ethical issues unique to representing cannabis clients and how to comply with ABA model rules and state ethics rules variations when confronted with these issues. Among the topics discussed are: - Scope of representation - Conflicts of interest - Lawyer as a business partner - Corporations as a client - Unauthorized practice of law - Supervising associates and other staff
Learning Objectives
* Understand the proper scope of representation when it comes to a cannabis client
* Learn how to avoid the unauthorized practice of law
* Know what unique ethical issues affect cannabis lawyers
Speaker Q&A
Question
At approximately the 59:30 mark, you reference threatening an out of state lawyer with a report to the state Bar in order to induce a desired action. Isn't such a threat a violation of the Rules?
- JonathanF
Answer
My response is, no, it is not a violation. In this situation I am not seeking to gain a civil advantage (RPC 4.5(a)) and am notifying that attorney of what I believe to be an ethical violation (RPC 4.5(b)). The issue turns on the meaning of “civil advantage.” My client gains nothing by threatening or even reporting the violation. RPC 4.5 is aimed primarily at parties to a lawsuit rather than counsel where a criminal or administrative proceeding is threatened as a strategic move against an opposing party. In reality dealing with the issue would cost my client money which is certainly not a civil advange.
By the way, the lawyer in question was forced to be admitted pro hac vice because I was correct in my assessment that he was practicing law outside of his jurisdiction.
- Jeffrey S. Gard
Presented By:
Jeffrey S. Gard
Boulder, CO
303.499.3040
jeff@gardlawfirm.com
