The ACA’s individual mandate penalty no longer applies, beginning in 2019. To download a copy of this ACA Compliance Bulletin, please click here.
The ACA’s individual mandate penalty no longer applies, beginning in 2019. To download a copy of this ACA Compliance Bulletin, please click here.
We know that this time of the year is always extremely busy for everyone, so we wanted to be sure to let everyone know about our in-house Employee Benefits team.
Many of you may be working through your health insurance renewal or waiting fearfully for it to hit your desk! If so, our dedicated team of experts is here to help ease your burden and find creative solutions to help mitigate your renewal increase.
Our AHERN Benefits team can not only help with your core offering like medical insurance, but also a wide array of solutions, including:
If we can answer any questions or be of any assistance throughout the year, please do not hesitate to contact Reid A. Middleton, JD, Executive Vice President of Employee Benefits, at firstname.lastname@example.org or (858) 514-7132.
Comprehensive Changes to Rules of Professional Conduct Become Operative Next Month
By Douglas A. Pettit, Shareholder and Vice President of Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin PC
To download a copy of this AHERN Update, please click here.
On May 10, 2018, the California Supreme Court approved the first comprehensive changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct since 1989. The new or amended rules are completely renumbered, a number of past rules have been changed, and there are new rules. Previously, there were 46 rules. There will now be 69 new or amended rules, which will become operative in November 2018, bringing the California rules into closer alignment with the ABA’s Model Rules. We refer to the Rules being replaced as the “Past Rule” even though they are effective through October 31, 2018.
Here are some of the more significant differences as of November 1, 2018.
Communication with Clients (Rule 1.4)
Past Rule 3-500, “Communication,” required that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about “significant developments” relating to the employment or representation. Otherwise, the Rule was fairly non-specific.
New Rule 1.4 is more specific and in line with the Model Rule. In addition to requiring lawyers to keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments, the lawyer must also:
The most significant difference is the need to consult with the client about objectives and how to achieve them. The new Rules place an emphasis on allowing the client to make informed decisions with an understanding of the costs involved. While we always have encouraged attorneys to clearly communicate with their clients, this now makes it unethical not to have discussions with the client about objectives and how to manage them. In litigation cases this practically mandates some form of a litigation management plan.
Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority (Rule 1.2)
This new Rule, without a prior counterpart, follows the theme of allowing clients to take control of litigation objectives and costs in two ways. First, it expressly permits a limited scope of retention if it is reasonable under the circumstances, not otherwise prohibited, and informed consent is obtained. Identifying the scope of the representation has long been recommended as a way to avoid exposure when clients make claims that they expected advice beyond that which the attorney felt he/she agreed to provide. An example is tax advice in a personal injury matter. The new rule however, also allows the client to authorize the attorney to take specific actions on the client’s behalf without taking on general retention. This allows a client to keep litigation costs controlled.
Second, this Rule also states that a lawyer shall aide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives or representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. Again, the Rules are emphasizing that decision making rests with the clients and that attorneys discuss not only the objective, but the means.
Unconscionable Fees (Rule 1.5)
Past Rule 4-200 states that an attorney may not charge or collect an unconscionable fee. The past rule lists factors that may be considered in determining whether a fee is unconscionable. Establishing that fees were unconscionable under the prior factors was fairly difficult. (While disputes that fees were not earned because of negligent conduct and/or alleged ethical breaches were common, it was rare to have successful arguments that fees were unconscionable under Rule 4-200).
New Rules 1.5(b)(1) and 1.5(b)(2) add the following factors to the list: (1) whether the lawyer engaged in “fraud or overreaching” in negotiating or setting the fee; and (2) whether the lawyer has failed to disclose material facts.
These changes would appear to make it easier to argue unconscionability. The “overreaching” and failure to disclose “material” facts may allow for a variety of arguments claiming a fee to be unconscionable. The first factor may allow for arguments as to whether the fee “over reaches” in relation to the amount at issue in the engagement or other reasons. The second factor could allow for arguments about whether the attorney disclosed all facts material to the representation. This could include facts regarding the attorneys’ experience in the area of retention, trial experience, or anticipated or estimated fees.
Fee Sharing (Rule 1.5.1)
Fee sharing and referral fees are still permitted under new Rule 1.5.1. However, to divide fees for shared work or responsibility, attorneys need to obtain informed written consent from the client at the time of the agreement or as soon as reasonably practicable after full disclosure of the fact a division of fees will be made, the identity of the lawyers or firm, and the terms of the division. The lawyers also need to enter into a written agreement to divide the fee and the fee cannot be increased as a result of the division.
There are three differences from past Rule 2-200. First, there now must be a written agreement between the attorneys. Second, the written consent must be obtained at the beginning of the agreement or as soon as reasonably practicable. Third, the new Rule omits language about “gifts” for the referral of cases. This would seem to confirm that gifts are still permitted but if there is a firm agreement for a referral fee, that the requirements above must be met.
Conflicts of Interest
Past Rules implement a “checklist” approach to conflicts, listing the instances in which informed written consent is required to accept or continue representation and/or when written disclosure of a potential conflict is required.
The new rules take a similar approach to conflicts but add some twists. Preliminarily, they are organized differently, drawing distinctions between current and former clients. Here is a listing of the new applicable Rules:
For current clients (where the duty of loyalty is typically at issue) new Rule 1.7 requires the attorney to consider first whether the representation is “directly adverse to another client in the same or a separate matter.” Comment  expands the definition of “matter” to encompass “any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for ruling or other determination, contract, transaction, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other deliberation, decision, or action that is focused on the interests of specific persons, or a discrete and identifiable class of persons.” The new conflict rule therefore prohibits representation of a client if that client’s interests are adverse to those of another client the lawyer has counseled or represented in almost any capacity.
Additionally, a lawyer may not accept representation without obtaining informed written consent where “there is a significant risk the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests.” (For an example of where an attorney has conflicts with representation of a current client due to relationships with non-clients, review the recent case of Knutson v. Foster (2018)).
Rule 1.7 also continues to cast a wide net on when written disclosures are required. The Rule reiterates the requirements of past Rule 3-310 in noting that written disclosures are required when:
1) The lawyer has, or knows that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm has, a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with or responsibility to a party or witness in the same matter or;
2) The lawyer knows or reasonably should know that another party’s lawyer is a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the lawyer, lives with the lawyer, is a client of the lawyer or another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm, or has an intimate personal relationship with the lawyer
Further, Rule 1.7 adds a “catch all” provision. If any scenarios are covered by the rule, representation is only permitted if:
1) The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
2) The representation is not prohibited by law; and
3) The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
Thus, even if the client is willing to sign a conflict waiver, an attorney is under a duty to independently consider, and confirm, that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation in light of the potential or actual conflicts. Use of the term “reasonable” also implies that this analysis will be judged on an objective and subjective basis.
Rule 1.8.10 is slightly different than its past counterpart, Rule 3-120. Previous Rule 3-120 allowed an attorney to continue representation of a client with whom he/she had developed sexual relations if the attorney felt he/she could continue to act competently. (Sexual relations is defined as intercourse or the touching of an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal). Rule 1.8.10 expressly prohibits an attorney from a sexual relationship with a client unless the consensual sexual relationship preexisted the attorney-client relationship.
Rule 1.9 addresses duties to former clients where the duty of confidentiality is the concern. It contains the similar language to that as contained in past Rule 3-310.
Rule 1.18 is a new Rule and significant addition. It spells out the duties that an attorney owes to a prospective client even if the attorney and/or client decline the representation. Notably, information obtained by a prospective client may result in a conflict and bar retention or continued representation for another client. Rule 1.18 designates any person who consults a lawyer for the purpose of retaining a lawyer or securing legal advice as a “prospective” client.
Lawyers are prohibited from disclosing or using confidential information obtained from the prospective client. Lawyers are also prohibited from accepting representation of a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client, even if the lawyer does not actually accept representation of the prospective client unless all affected parties have given informed written consent, or if the lawyer took reasonable measures to avoid obtaining more information than necessary from the prospective client, is timely screened from the matter, and written notice is provided.
Safekeeping of Client Property (Rule 1.15)
Past Rule 4-100, which governed the safekeeping of client property, required that funds received or held for the benefit of the client be segregated in a client trust account. However, the past rule did not require that advance deposits on fees be held in a client trust account. The flexible nature of the past rule meant that firms could deposit advance fee payments into the firm’s operating accounts.
As of November 1, 2018, this practice would violate the Rules: new Rule 1.15 explicitly adds “advances for fees” as client property that must be held in trust, thus requiring that essentially all funds received from a client be maintained in a client trust account in California. The only exceptions are flat fees (if disclosed in writing that the client has the right to have the flat fee deposited in a trust account) and true retainers, which are classified not as funds belonging to the client but rather funds belonging to the lawyer because the retainer is earned upon receipt.
The new rule also keeps the language regarding funds “received or held for the benefit of the client.” This suggests that when the new rules go into effect, client funds already held in a firm’s operating account and not yet earned, will likely need to be identified, segregated, and moved to a trust account maintained in California.
Delay of Litigation (Rule 3.2)
A Rule with no prior counterpart, Rule 3.2 sets forth that an attorney shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to delay proceedings or cause needless expense.
Truthfulness to Others (Rules 4.1 and 4.3)
Two new Rules without prior counterparts, both Rules emphasize an attorney’s need to be honest with third parties and move beyond an attorney’s duty of candor to a tribunal and/or client. Rule 4.1 sets forth that an attorney shall not make false statements of material fact or law to a third person or fail to disclose a material fact to a third person where disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client unless disclosure is prohibited by the Business and Professions Code.
Notably, case law has typically restricted claims by third parties based on the failure of attorneys to disclose information to nonclients. The new Rules reiterate the same provision contained in the previous Rules that they are not intended to create private causes of action. But it still leaves a much broader range for non-clients to submit complaints to the State Bar based on alleged violations of this section.
Rule 4.3 states that an attorney, speaking on behalf of a client to a third party, may not state or imply that he or she is disinterested. Further, if the attorney believes that the third party believes the attorney is disinterested, the attorney must take reasonable steps to correct the misunderstanding.
Inadvertent Emails (Rule 4.4)
Rule 4.4, without a prior counterpart, sets forth an ethical obligation that echoes duties previously established by case law. When it is reasonably apparent to a lawyer that a privileged communication was inadvertently sent, the lawyer shall refrain from examining the writing any more than is necessary to determine that it is privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and shall promptly notify the sender.
Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers (Rule 5.1)
Another new Rule without a prior counterpart, Rule 5.1 requires that an attorney who has managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has procedures in effect giving reasonable assurances that all lawyers comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act. The Rule also requires that direct supervisors make reasonable efforts to ensure lawyers they supervise comply with both. Supervising attorneys are responsible if they ratify conduct or know of the conduct at a time when its consequences could have been avoided or mitigated and failed to take reasonable remedial action.
Prohibition on Discrimination (Rule 8.4.1)
Past Rule 2-400 prohibited discrimination in the management or operation of a law practice, and required a prior adjudication of unlawful conduct by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction before a lawyer could be subject to discipline by the State Bar. The past rule provided a due process ‘buffer’ between attorneys and disgruntled employees or clients alleging discrimination.
New Rule 8.4.1 dramatically expands the scope of the rule and eliminates the requirement that there be a final determination of unlawful discrimination before the State Bar can impose discipline. Rule 8.4.1 prohibits unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in connection with the representation of a client, the refusal to accept a client, termination of a client, and in law firm operations.
Under the new rule, there is no need for a prior adjudication before a State Bar complaint is filed or investigated. Moreover, the alleged discrimination need not be just in the operation of a law practice; it could arise from the choice to represent or not represent a client as well. Rule 8.4.1 also recognizes a much wider range of “protected characteristics” than are recognized by Rule 2-400.
This Rule is likely the one that could have the most profound impact on the State Bar Staff. It essentially puts the State Bar Attorneys and Investigators in the position of investigating a broad range of potential accusations that until November 1 have never been part of their purview and were typically in the hands of investigators trained specifically to deal with harassment and discrimination claims. The new Rule also likely emphasizes the need for attorneys to retain files for potential clients who are turned away with notes setting forth the reasons. Otherwise, the attorney could be faced with trying to explain to the State Bar a reason for rejecting a potential client where the attorney may not even recall the client and has no means of refreshing his/her memory.
**No portion of this article is intended to constitute legal advice. Be sure to perform independent research and analysis. Any views expressed are those of the author only.
To download a copy of this AHERN Update, please click here.
Plan sponsors of group health plans providing prescription drug coverage to individuals who are eligible for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage are required to satisfy certain notice requirements.
Individuals must enroll in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage when first eligible (generally, at age 65). If they do not do so, they are subject to a permanently higher monthly premium when enrolling at a later date. A key exception to this general rule is for individuals who do not enroll when initially eligible because they are enrolled in other prescription drug coverage which is creditable. Coverage is considered creditable if it is at least as good or better than the actuarial value of Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. The required notice of creditable coverage (or notice of non-creditable coverage) is designed to help individuals determine the timing of when they must enroll in Medicare Part D.
Determining whether a prescription drug plan is creditable
Generally, prescription drug coverage under an employer group health plan will be creditable. There is a safe harbor method of determining creditable coverage status. The requirements are easily satisfied. However, for qualifying high deductible health plans (HDHPs) offered in connection with a health savings account (HSA), the HDHP may not be creditable unless it is expected to pay, on average, at least 60% of participants’ prescription drug expenses. It may be necessary to obtain actuarial advice to make this determination in connection with an HDHP.
Penalty for Noncompliance
Fortunately, there is no penalty for employer/plan sponsors who do not comply with the notice requirement. However, if the employer provides retiree prescription drug coverage and claims a subsidy under Medicare Part D (only a minority of employers do so) providing the notice is a precondition to obtaining the subsidy. Even though there is no penalty for noncompliance for most employers, it is still advisable to comply to assist participants in helping them to determine when they need to enroll Medicare Part D.
In addition to the participant notice requirement, employer/plan sponsors are also required to disclose to CMS whether their prescription drug coverage is creditable or non-creditable. The disclosure is required on an annual basis within 60 days after the beginning of each plan year. The CMS reporting is electronic. (Visit the below website for more information.)
Click here to download a copy of this Benefits Brief.
A leading insurance professional organization recently recognized AHERN’s own, Tamara L. Bartels, CIC, for dedication and ongoing leadership in the insurance industry.
The Society of Certified Insurance Counselors (CIC) honored Tamara L. Bartels, CIC for five years of successfully maintaining the Certified Insurance Counselor (CIC) designation, denoting significant commitment to advanced knowledge and customer service.
“This honor is an acknowledgement of the priority that Ms. Bartels places on education and professional growth,” cited the Society’s President, Dr. William T. Hold, CIC, CPCU, CLU. “Customers, associates and the insurance profession as a whole benefit from such a strong commitment to continuing education.”
The CIC Program is nationally recognized as the premier continuing education program for insurance professionals, with programs offered in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, the Society of CIC is a not-for-profit organization and the founding program of The National Alliance for Insurance Education and Research.
Where are law firm employee benefits heading? What new benefits are being offered and what’s being taken away? Join us as we take a comprehensive look at the latest trends arising in the legal market.
Reid Middleton | AHERN Insurance Brokerage
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
11:30 am to 12:00 pm | Check-In/Networking
12:00 pm to 1:00 pm | Lunch and Program
Bonne Bridges Mueller O’Keefe & Nichols
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1562
Hosted parking available at Wells Fargo Center.
Entrance to parking at 330 S. Hope Street.
RSVP BY: June 22, 2018 at www.glaala.org
Click here for more information.
On Jan. 5, 2018, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that, effective April 1, 2018, employee benefit plans must comply with new requirements for disability benefit claims.
Click here to read the latest Compliance Bulletin from Ahern|ELT.
Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that may violate federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a list of best practices for employers to use in their workplaces to prevent harassment. According to the EEOC, five core principles have generally proven effective in preventing and addressing harassment.
Click here to continue reading this HR Insight.
We are pleased to announce that our monthly Benefits & HR webinars have been approved for Professional Development Credits (PDCs) with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). For participants that have their SHRM-CPSM or SHRM-SCPSM Certifications, they will be able to earn 1 PDC by attending our webinars. The PDC information will be emailed to participants within 48-hours following our webinars.
Please click here to download the Benefits & HR Webinar Series January through April 2018 calendar.