The 91黑料爆料 Ethics Advisory Committee provides the full text of all ethics opinions since 1990 online. To find the opinion you need, simply use the search form below.
The opinions in this database contain the advice of the Committee based on the state of the law at the time of each opinion. Opinions are not updated to reflect changes in the , more recent opinions, or other law. Further research may be necessary. Earlier opinions are available through vLex Fastcase.
Frequently Asked Questions are also available.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-32
Attorneys for Owner and unpaid subcontractors and materialmen: (1) May advise their respective clients of their right to file criminal charges against General Contractor under Sec. 29-7- 20; ...
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-31
In this factual situation, A's attorney may not contact these employees. The attorney for "X" would have to use his judgment in deciding whether to report the violation, depending on whether a substantial question as to the lawyer's fitness has been raised.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-28
Under SCACR 407, 7.2 (c) regarding a legal service organization, is either or both of these practices unethical?
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-27
As long as the interests of the defendants, including the lawyer as a defendant, remain consistent there appears no per se prohibition upon the lawyer representing other defendants, provided that each client consents after consultation.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-26
The employment of a convicted felon to perform administrative services for a lawyer or law firm does not violate any South Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-24
In determining whether it is a conflict of interest for Law Firm XYZ to continue representation adverse to Defendant A, the law firm should consider the nature of Attorney B's representation of GHI, Inc.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-23
In each case, lawyers who were actively representing adverse clients in the same litigation matter become members of the same firm.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-22
The proposed Agreement constitutes an indirect restriction on the right to practice law. Such an indirect restriction on the right to practice constitutes a violation of Rule 5.6(a).
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-21
The public defender's office is treated as a law firm for purposes of imputing disqualification. A single public defender ordinarily should not represent more than one co-defendant, and the disqualification would be imputed to other members of the same office.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 92-20
Can a S.C. law firm/attorney hire a non-S.C. Bar member, who was formerly an attorney in another state and was disbarred from practice in that state, to do legal research and other paralegal work?