JUSTIN J. FIELDS

The most interesting development in the world of lawyer professional responsibility is the renewed focus on civility and professionalism, according to Justin J. Fields.

The State Bar has proposed amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct that make clear that a lawyer may be disciplined for incivility. “It’s a fascinating development,” Fields said.

The rules proposal is based on a September 2021 report from a task force put together by the California Lawyers Association and the California Judges Association. Around that same time, Fields took over as chair of the bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, which last fall issued comments on the proposed rule changes.

“Our goal was to offer another window of insight to this iterative [rulemaking] process,” he said. “We didn’t try to take a position.”

But speaking for himself, Fields said that “anything we can do to promote courtesy and respect and dignity between counsel is going to be better for everyone, including the clients that lawyers serve.”

Fields primarily represents lawyers in malpractice and similar litigation, which he described as “one of the last generalist types of practice” because the underlying issues can come from any field, from family law to intellectual property.

“There’s something very intellectually satisfying about this practice,” he said. “I’m always learning something new and being challenged in that way.”

Currently, about half of his malpractice matters are in arbitration rather than court. He has found recently that arbitrators are willing to grant dispositive motions, a trend he said might surprise some litigators. “I think that is a positive sign,” Fields said. “It’s promoting the purpose of arbitration by creating efficiencies in resolution that sometimes aren’t possible in other contexts.”

In one case not too long ago, an arbitrator initially issued a seven-page, single-spaced tentative ruling rejecting his motion to dismiss a malpractice action against a California firm. But after he argued, she changed her mind and ruled for his client.

In a malpractice case for another firm, he won a quick victory immediately following opening statements for what would have been a court trial. The plaintiff had failed to produce any experts before the discovery cut-off. Fields argued that without experts, the plaintiff could not establish the necessary standard of care, so the case should be nonsuited. The judge agreed.

Fields continues to serve on COPRAC as a nonvoting adviser to the ethics panel. He said that over the past few years, the committee published ethics opinions on important issues including litigation funding, diminished capacity and working remotely. In the pipeline now are opinions examining ethical issues of law firm succession planning and of cryptocurrency.

“We continue to publish on issues we think are going to be important and helpful and germane to practicing lawyers in service of the client-protection component of our mission,” he said.

– Don DeBenedictis