Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, A state court judge is retiring after what seems like 105 years on the bench.  A retirement party is scheduled to occur 3 days before the judge’s retirement becomes effective. A group of lawyers on behalf of the local bar is collecting money to buy tickets for a European vacation to present to the judge at the retirement party. As far as the Model Rules are concerned, may we contribute?

Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, My good client Johnson recommended me to another prospect who has hired me for a major case. Can I properly give Johnson a nice gift certificate as a “thank you” for his recommendation?

Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, You have been telling us for years that we have to check the version of the Model Rules in effect wherever we are admitted, or where a case or transaction is, where we are proposing to do various things, or where our client is, i.e., that the rules are often different in different states. I’ve got that.

But how do we know, when the rules are different between two states, which state’s law applies? If they are inconsistent in a way that means we can’t comply with both, are we simply up the proverbial creek without an ethical paddle? Is there any guidance out there?

Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I have the luck/misfortune to lead a medium-sized firm. For a while now, all the buzz has been about AI and Generative AI. The talk is seemingly split between cautionary tales about how one shouldn’t use Gen AI because of various ethical and malpractice concerns; and talk about how those firms that don’t adopt it will be failing ethical obligations to serve their clients more efficiently, and will also be left in the dust by their competitors to boot.

What are our ethical obligations? And to the extent we do invest in Gen AI, and serve our clients at less cost to them and more to us, how do we ethically charge for that? Also, if increased efficiency means billing fewer hours, have technology companies just taken over another piece of our business?

Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I have a litigation practice centered on representing clients in a very low income area. Some of the clients have at least modest means, but are unable to fund the costs and expenses of litigation, and for those who have good cases I usually take matters on a contingent fee basis, advancing the costs and expenses of litigation, contingent (along with my fee) on the outcome. There are other clients whose needs are a bit more challenging, because an injury or housing displacement has disrupted their ability to handle normal living expenses. For these clients, in addition to advancing the costs and expense of litigation, I’d like to provide them with some financial assistance that would enable them to feed and house their family during the course of the litigation. Ethically, can I do this?

Also, I have a related set of questions. I volunteer at and serve on the Board of a neighborhood legal clinic run by a public interest organization, where we represent indigent clients in litigation matters on a pro bono basis. Are we able to advance or pay the costs and expenses of litigation in this context? Could we also advance or provide living expenses to these clients?

Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I am an in-house corporate lawyer for a multinational agricultural products company. I was grinding away at 6 pm one evening when I received a call from a business colleague based internationally, with whom I have worked before. She explains that she is negotiating a license agreement to obtain rights to manufacture and sell some incredible new technology in the United States. She has an e-mail from the other party with the proposed form of licensing agreement. She tells me that the deal must be agreed upon in the next 12 hours or it will be lost to another bidder. Apparently she has been out of the office with an illness and had overlooked the email until just now. She wants me to review the proposed agreement immediately and advise her, but I’ve never done this before. She and I tried but were unable to reach an IP lawyer.

What do I do? I suppose my review is better than no legal review, but this is out of my area.