EFTA00014011.pdf
188 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence (ethics opinion denial)
File Size:
188 KB
Summary
This document is a letter from Gail E. Ferguson, Assistant Ethics Counsel for The Florida Bar, to an Assistant United States Attorney (name redacted) in the Southern District of Florida, dated November 4, 2008. The letter denies a request for an advisory ethics opinion regarding whether the AUSA violated solicitation rules by contacting victims to offer free legal services as required by statute and court order, stating that the Bar cannot opine on past conduct or legal questions. Ferguson discusses relevant rules regarding solicitation (Rule 4-7.4), communication with represented persons (Rule 4-4.2), and compliance with court orders (Rule 4-3.4).
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Gail E. Ferguson | Assistant Ethics Counsel |
Author of the letter, representing The Florida Bar.
|
| [Redacted] | Assistant United States Attorney |
Recipient of the letter; requested an ethics opinion regarding contacting victims.
|
| Elizabeth Clark Tarbert | Ethics Counsel |
Person to whom a review/appeal of this denial should be addressed.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Florida Bar |
Regulatory body issuing the ethics response.
|
|
| United States Attorney's Office |
Employer of the recipient (Southern District of Florida).
|
|
| Professional Ethics Committee |
Committee available to review the denial of the opinion.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the Assistant United States Attorney (recipient).
|
|
|
Location of the Ethics Counsel for appeals.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the Assistant United States Attorney.
|
Relationships (1)
Ferguson is providing ethics guidance (denial of opinion) to the redacted AUSA.
Key Quotes (4)
"Florida Bar ethics attorneys are only authorized to provide opinions regarding an attorney’s own future conduct. We are not authorized to render opinions concerning an attorney’s past conduct or legal questions."Source
EFTA00014011.pdf
Quote #1
"If your contact with victims is neither motivated by pecuniary gain nor to assist another lawyer whose significant motive is pecuniary gain, then it is unlikely that your contact with victims could be characterized as improper solicitation in violation of Rule 4-7.4 (a)."Source
EFTA00014011.pdf
Quote #2
"It would be prudent for you to comply with this rule by limiting your contact to the lawyers of represented victims."Source
EFTA00014011.pdf
Quote #3
"Rule 4-3.4 (c), requires you to comply with any orders issued by the court."Source
EFTA00014011.pdf
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document