July 02, 1999
Volume 5 -- Number 092

What follows is the case style or name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion released eletronically today to TBALink from Tennessee's three appellate courts.

This Issue (IN THIS ORDER):
 
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers' Compensation Panel
00 New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
00 New Judicial Ethics Opinion(s)
03 New Formal Ethics Opinion(s) from the Board of Professional Responsibility
 

There are three ways for TBALink members to get the full-text versions of these opinions from the Web:

Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink.This option will allow you to view and save a plain text version of the opinion.

*NEW* Browse the Opinion List area of TBALink. This option will allow you to download the original WordPerfect 6.0 version of the opinion.

Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original WordPerfect 6.0 document.

Lucian T. Pera
Editor-in-Chief, TBALink


FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 99-F-143	
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
	OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
First Paragraph:
Inquiry regarding the propriety of a lawyer who is appointed by an
insurance company to defend an insured,  permitting the insurance
company to hire outside auditors to audit the legal expenses of the
attorney and to  give directives relative to his defense of the insured.

It has become increasingly common for insurance companies to retain
outside auditors to audit the fees,  expenses and files of attorneys,
who have been  appointed to represent insureds.  In some of these
instances, the insurance companies and/or the auditors have issued
directives to the attorneys regarding  their defense of the insured.  In
this regards,    two particular considerations  arise.  The first is
whether the disclosure of  information to the auditors is a violation of
the insuredÕs attorney/client confidentiality privilege.  The second is
whether an impermissible conflict has occurred as a result of the
insurerÕs directives to the attorney.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/FEO_143_wpd.WP6



FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 99-F-144 BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE First Paragraph: Lawyers listing areas of practice on the Internet, including law directories or other Web sites available to the public, should comply with the certification of specialization disclosure requirements of DR 2-101(C) The Tennessee Supreme Court implemented the attorney certification of specialization program effective on June 15, 1994 when certifications of specialization became available in the areas of Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, CreditorsÕ Rights, and all areas reasonably included in any of these areas. On August 25, 1995, the Supreme Court approved standards and made certification of specialization available in the areas of Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice and Elder Law; and on January 6, 1997 certification of specialization became available in the area of Estate Planning. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/FEO_144_wpd.WP6
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 84-F-73(a) BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE First Paragraph: Formal Ethics Opinion 84-F-73 was issued by the Board of Professional Responsibility on June 13, 1984, arising out of a criminal case wherein the defendant was charged with first degree murder. The defendant objected to any efforts or actions by appointed defense counsel in his behalf against the imposition of the death penalty in the event that a guilty verdict was returned in the guilt phase of the trial and instructed appointed defense counsel to neither investigate nor present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of the trial. The defendant was adjudged competent to stand trial. The appointed counsel sought guidance from the Board of Professional Responsibility prior to trial regarding their ethical responsibilities. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/FEO_84-F-73(a)_wpd.WP6

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL!
Feel free to forward this Opinion Flash on to anyone you know of with an e-mail address.

GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
See the intrsuctions at the beginning of this edition of Opinion Flash.

JOIN TBALink!
While Opinion Flash is a free service of the Tennessee Bar Association,
you must be a subscriber to TBALink, the premier Web site for

Tennessee attorneys, in order to access the full-text of the opinions

or enjoy many other features of TBALink. TBA members may join

TBALink for just $50 per year. To join, go to: http://www.tba.org/join.html/

SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
Would you like to receive the TBALink Opinion-Flash free each
day by e-mail? Anyone -- whether a TBA member or not is welcome

to subscribe ... it's free!

For the
Plain Text Version:
1) Send an e-mail message to: Opinion-Flash@tba.org
2) In the SUBJECT of the message type:
SUBSCRIBE
3) Leave the body of the message blank

For the HTML Text Version:
1) Send an e-mail message to: Opinion-Flash@tba.org
2) In the SUBJECT of the message type:
SUBSCRIBE HTML
3) Leave the body of the message blank

UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!

To STOP receiving TBALink Opinion-Flash:
1) Send an e-mail message to: Opinion-Flash@tba.org
2) In the SUBJECT of the message type:
UNSUBSCRIBE
3) Leave the body of the message blank


© Copyright 1999 Tennessee Bar Association