WPC -c3,I\& %R{o KJj')|;Tłnt01 zWb#i_?cGR[ߧGl]|#W/>}kofA4 g U(#䚶|,C:Fd΁ { 6PɗEd2@79h]5vb߮HŸ)DmTV\}ߧQsEGf /;۾^0*"nb/EJb6~%f)i)2{%KqA"{^ORe[H[?I|2Z,:jpk#>cbL{}tfgiȈ%y D'jg#ӞD9?').c:ntZ%,|^sBB"i"Ղ%(JE]396Bh5e|5_ik{ 5W8hMJM&'IFS^XR8QPHb#\ % ^ # 0/ UNN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  U@NEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K   AST 0m 0D AUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0,s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularz,MISCEL~1s C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman - -(|G2 $ !.8Kdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Kdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Kdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Kdd8     _K8qXXdd8   @ NKINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE & #KN #XqXK   `     h     #KXXq#  INRE: @`  @ PROPOSEDTENNESSEERULESOF $ PROFESSIONALCONDUCTXqXK   8 T@* @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  $ @No.M200002416SC_RL_Ԅ_RL_Ԉ    AV) ` dE<` A       `     h       @ FiledApril18,2002_(jsr) _Ԉ   #KXXq#XqXK@& &  ORDER#KXXqX#XqXKԀSCHEDULINGORALARGUMENT  z  #KXXq#XqXK#KXXq/#XqXK  OnDecember3,2001,theTennesseeBarAssociation( TBA)fileditsRevisedFinalReport > #KXXqr#XqXKconcerningadoptionofitsProposedTennessee#KXXq4#XqXKRulesofProfessionalConduct( ProposedRules). *z OnFebruary6,2002,theClerkoftheAppellateCourtssentletterstoallindividualsand f organizationswhorespondedwithearliercomments,askingeachwhethertheTBAsRevisedFinal R ReportsatisfiedtheirinitialconcernsregardingtheProposedRules.TheClerkalsoaskedwhether > theparticularindividualsororganizationswouldbeinterestedinbeingheardatoralargumenton * specificissuesthattheyfeltremainedunresolvedbytheRevisedFinalReport.    TheClerkreceivedadditionalresponsesfrommanyoftheseindividualsandorganizations  andforwardedtheseresponsestotheCourt.Afterhavingconsideredtheseadditionalcommentsand  suggestions,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatsignificantissuesremainastowhethertheTBAs v proposalshouldbeadoptedinplaceofthecurrentTennesseeCodeofProfessionalResponsibility. b Consequently,theCourtfindsthatoralargumentontheseissueswouldbeparticularlyhelpfulin N  consideringwhethertoadopttheTBAsproposal.Therefore,theCourtdirectstheClerkofthe :!  AppellateCourtstoscheduleoralargumentonJune6,2002,at9:00a.m.inNashvilleandtonotify &"v! alltheinterestedpartiesaccordingly. #b"   Withregardtotheprocedurestobefollowedatargument,discussionofeachissueshallbe $: $ limitedtoten(10)minutesperside"withallowanceforadditiontimebeingsubjecttothediscretion %&!% oftheChiefJustice#KXXq#XqXK"andshallproceedintheorderpresentedbelow.TheTBAshallarguefirstin &"& supportoftheProposedRulesatissue,reservinganytimefordesiredrebuttal,andthedesignated '"' partyorpartiesshallrespondwithanyconcernsorsuggestions.Inthoseinstanceswhenmultiple (#( partiesaretobeheardinresponsetotheTBAssubmissions,thosepartiesaretodecideamong )$) themselves,priortoargument,theproperallocationoftheten(10)minuteargumentperiod.#KXXq#XqXKԀ#KXXqe#XqXKFinally, r*%* shouldthepartieswishtosubmitfurthercommentsorbriefingontheirdesignatedissueorissues, ^+&+ suchsubmissionsshallbefiledwiththeClerkoftheAppellateCourtonorbeforeFriday,May17, J,', 2002.#KXXq#XqXK 6-(- Ї  Inparticular,theCourtdesirestohearargumentonthefollowingissues,presentedbythe  partyorpartiesindicatedbelow:  #KXXq#XqXK   ISSUE1:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule1.6(a)(Confidentiality), t whichrequiresalawyertokeepconfidential allinformationrelatedtotherepresentationofa ` client,or(2)retainthecurrentconfidentialitystandardcontainedinTennesseeSupremeCourtRule L  8,DR4101(B),whichprohibitsalawyerfromrevealing aconfidenceorsecretofaclient. 8  8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting  ` ProposedRule1.6(a)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;the#KXXq #XqXKԀTennesseeBoard  L  ofProfessionalResponsibilitytoargueinfavorofretainingthecurrent  8  confidentialitystandardcontainedinTennesseeSupremeCourtRule8,DR4101(B).$       ISSUE2:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule1.6(b)(1)(2)   (Confidentiality),whichpermitsalawyertoreveal informationrelatedtotherepresentationofa   clientwhenthelawyerreasonablybelievesthatsucharevelationisnecessary toprevent   reasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharmor topreventtheclientoranotherpersonfrom p committingacrime;or(2)affirmativelyrequirealawyertoreveal informationrelatedtothe \ representationofaclientwhenthelawyerreasonablybelievesthatsucharevelationisnecessary H  topreventreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharmor topreventtheclientoranother 4 personfromcommittingacrime.  p 8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting H ProposedRule1.6(b)(1)(2)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;#KXXq#XqXKԀtheTennessee 4 DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferenceandtheTennesseeBoardofProfessional   Responsibilitytoargueinfavorofrequiringalawyertohaveanaffirmativeethical   obligationtorevealsuchinformation.      ISSUE3:  WhetherthisCourtshouldadoptProposedRule1.6(b)(3)(Confidentiality),  whichpermitsalawyertoreveal informationrelatedtotherepresentationofaclientwhenthe l lawyerreasonablybelievesthatsucharevelationisnecessary torectifyormitigatesubstantial X  injurytothefinancialinterestsorpropertyofanotherresultingfromtheclientscommissionofa D! crimeorfraudinfurtheranceofwhichtheclienthasusedthelawyersservices. 0"  8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting $X" ProposedRule1.6(b)(3)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;Mr.T._Maxfield_ $D # _Bahner_,ChattanoogaBar,toargueinfavorofomittingthissection#KXXq#XqXK.%0!$      ISSUE4:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule1.7(b)(Conflictsof '#& InterestGeneralRule),whichprohibitsalawyerfromrepresentingXqXXXq aclientiftherepresentation (#' ofthatclientmaybemateriallylimitedbythelawyersresponsibilitiestoanotherclientortoathird )$( person,orbythelawyersowninterests,unless#XqXXXq"##KXXq!#XqXKthelawyer reasonablybelievesthatthe |*%) representationwilladverselyaffectandtheclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation,or(2)retain h+&* thecurrentstandardofTennesseeSupremeCourtRule8,DR5105(C),whichconditionsmultiple  representationsuponwhether itisobviousthatthelawyercanadequatelyrepresenttheinterestof  eachandifeachconsentstotherepresentation.  8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofProposedRule ` 1.7(b)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennesseeBoardofProfessional L  Responsibilitytoargueinfavorofretainingthecurrentstandard#KXXq;$#XqXK.8       ISSUE5:  IfthisCourtadoptsProposedRule1.7,whetherthisCourtshouldalsoadopt  ` arulethatprohibitsalawyerfromrepresentingmorethanoneclientinthesamecriminalcaseunless  L  thelawyeraffirmativelyshowstothetribunalthatnoconflictofinterestexistsorwillexist.  8  8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting   ProposedRule1.7assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennesseeDistrict   AttorneysGeneralConferencetoargueinfavorofaddingthisadditionalprohibition   toProposedRule1.7#KXXq'#XqXK.       ISSUE6:  WhetherthisCourtshouldadoptProposedRule3.2(ExpeditingLitigation), \ whichrequiresthat [a]lawyershallmakereasonableeffortstoexpeditelitigationconsistentwith H theinterestsoftheclient. 4 8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting  \ ProposedRule3.2assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennesseeDistrict H AttorneysGeneralConferencetoargueinfavorofomittingtheemphasizedlanguage#KXXq*#XqXK.4      ISSUE7:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule3.3(b)(CandorToward   theTribunal),whichprohibitsalawyerfromofferingevidence thelawyerknowstobefalse,or  (2)adoptarulethatprohibitsalawyerfromofferingevidencethatthelawyerreasonablybelieves  isfalse.  8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting X  ProposedRule3.3(b)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennessee D! DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferencetoargueinfavorofprohibitingalawyerfrom 0"  offeringevidencethatthelawyerreasonablybelievesisfalse.#KXXq-#XqXK#l!     ISSUE8:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule3.3(e)(f)(CandorToward $D # theTribunal),whichrequiresalawyertorequestwithdrawalfromtherepresentationofaclientif %0!$ thelawyerlearnsofaclientfrauduponthetribunalandtheclient refusesorisunabletodisclose &"% orotherwiserectifythecrimeorfraud,or(2)adoptarulethatalsorequiresthelawyertorevealthe '#& substanceandnatureofthefraudtothetribunal. (#' 8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting |*%) ProposedRule3.3(e)(f)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennessee h+&* DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferencetoargueinfavorofrequiringalawyertoalso  revealtheclientsfraud#KXXq31#XqXK.     ISSUE9: WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule3.3(h)(CandorTowardthe t Tribunal),whichrequiresalawyertoreportathirdpartysperpetrationofafrauduponthetribunalf   ` orcommissionofanoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwiththeproceeding, L  butonlyifthelawyercomestoknowofthefacts priortotheconclusionoftheproceeding,or(2) 8  adoptarulerequiringthelawyertorevealsuchfraudsandoffensesevenaftertheconclusionofthe $ t proceedings.  ` 8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting  8  ProposedRule3.3(h)#KXXq@5#XqXKassubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennessee $  DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferencetoargueinfavorofrequiringalawyerto   revealathirdpartysfraudaftertheconclusionoftheproceedings#KXXq8#XqXK.      ISSUE10: WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule3.6(c)(TrialPublicity),   whichpermitsalawyertomakeapublicstatementaboutacasewhen areasonablelawyerwould p believe[thatsuchastatement]isrequiredtoprotectaclientfromthesubstantialundueprejudicial \ effectofrecentpublicitynotinitiatedbythelawyerorthelawyersclient,or(2)adoptarulethat H prohibitsallextrajudicialstatements thatthelawyerknowsorreasonablyshouldknowwillbe 4 disseminatedbymeansofpubliccommunicationandwillhaveasubstantiallikelihoodofmaterially  p prejudicinganadjudicativeproceeding.  \ 8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting 4 ProposedRule3.6(c)assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennessee   DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferencetoargueinfavorofomittingProposedRule   3.6(c)#KXXq:#XqXK.     ISSUE11:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptthelanguageofthecommenttoProposed  Rule4.4(RespectfortheRightsofaThirdPerson),whichstatesthat thisRuledoesnotprohibit l secretrecordingsolongasthelawyerhasasubstantialpurposeotherthantoembarrassorburden X  thepersonsbeingrecorded,or(2)continuetoprohibitsurreptitioustaperecordingsincivil D! proceedingsasnowrequiredbyFormalEthicsOpinions81F14and81F14(a). 0"  8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting $X" ProposedRule4.4assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennesseeBoardof $D # ProfessionalResponsibilitytoargueinfavorofprohibitingsurreptitioustape %0!$ recordingsincivilproceedings#KXXq>#XqXK.#KXXqB#XqXK&"%     ISSUE12:  WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptProposedRule7.5(FirmNamesand (#' Letterhead),whichpermitslawfirmstousetradenamesundercertaincircumstances,or(2)retain )$( thesubstanceofTennesseeSupremeCourtRule8,DR2102(B),whichprohibitstheuseoftrade |*%) names#KXXq0C#XqXK. h+&* Ї8  Partiesrequestedtoaddressthisissue:TheTBAtoargueinfavorofadopting  ProposedRule7.5assubmittedintheRevisedFinalReport;theTennesseeBoardof  ProfessionalResponsibilitytoargueinfavorofretainingtheprohibitionontheuse  oftradenames#KXXqE#XqXK.#KXXqF#XqXKt   #KXXqF#XqXK  #KXXqZG#XqXKInadditiontotheissueslistedabovefororalargument,theTennesseeAttorneyGeneralhas r  expressedhisdesiretosupplyadditionalbriefing,butnotargument,onthefollowingissue: ^     WhetherthisCourtshould(1)adoptParagraph[4]intheScopeoftheProposedRules,which 2  statesthat [t]heseRulesarenotintendedtoabrogatethepowersandresponsibilitiesofgovernment  n  lawyersunderfederallaworundertheconstitution,statutes,orcommonlawofTennessee,or(2)  Z  revisethislanguagetoread [t]heseRulesdonotabrogatethepowersandresponsibilitiesof F  governmentlawyersunderfederallaworundertheconstitution,statutes,orcommonlawof 2  Tennessee.     Therefore,theAttorneyGeneralshallfileanyadditionalbriefingwiththeClerkofthe   AppellateCourtonorbeforeFriday,May17,2002.TheTBAshallthenfilearesponsebriefwith  theClerkoftheAppellateCourt,ifanyresponseisdesired,onorbefore#KXXqG#XqXKMonday,May27,2002. ~   Finally,theCourtwishestoacknowledgethatthecomments,suggestions,andresponses V submittedbyallthepartieshavebeeninvaluabletoitsconsiderationoftheseimportantproposals. B Tothatend,theCourtwishestoexpressitssinceregratitudetoallthepartiesfortheirparticipation .~ thusfarinthisprocess. j     #KXXqL# `     h      p   PERCURIAM