Legal Ethics for Health Care Lawyers

Reviewing several recent cases and ethics opinions, this session will address practical ethics issues likely to be confronted in day-to-day practice by both transactional and litigators.

This webinar will be available for purchase until July 3, 2021.

Subscribers have 10 days from the date of purchase to complete the webinar. After 10 days you will no longer have access to the webinar and will not be able to claim the CLE hours.

If you have not paid your voluntary NSBA dues but would like to do so in order to receive discounted rates on webinars purchased through the portal (along with many other benefits), please visit https://nebar.site-ym.com/?page=JoinNSBA.

Credits Ethics:0.75, General:0.75

Tag(s) Health, Ethics

Description

*Nebraska MCLE #185250; 0.75 Ethics hours. (OnDemand credit)**

**This program has been approved for 0.75 hours of distance-learning CLE, including 0.75 hours of ethics. You may claim 0.75 hours of credit total for this program.

Reviewing several recent cases and ethics opinions, this session will address practical ethics issues likely to be confronted in day-to-day practice by both transactional and litigators, including:

The importance of clarity about who you represent and who you do not represent in a corporate setting, how a lawyer can accidentally owe fiduciary duties to co-parties in a transaction, and practical steps to avoid these problems. Model Rules 1.13(f) and (g). DePuy Orthopaedics v. Orthopaedic Hospital, U. S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Indiana (2016).
Fundamentals of the attorney client privilege, and unintended waiver of the privilege through multi-purpose communications, poorly structured investigations, and disclosures to third party consultants. Model Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.6. FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D.C. Circuit (2018). Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc., Iowa Supreme Court (2018). In Re Restasis Antitrust Litigation, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D.N.Y. (2019). Hoopes v. Owners Insurance Company, U.S. Dist. Ct. D. Utah (2018).

How attorney misconduct can harm the client's substantive interests, as shown by a case where the attorney's conduct created an equitable defense of unclean hands for the opposing party. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Federal Circuit (2018).
A refresher and update on the rule prohibiting attorney communications with a represented party. Model Rules 4.2 and 1.6(a). Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 2018-1.
The unauthorized practice of law and in-house counsel. Model Rule 5.5. Disciplinary Counsel v. Maciak, 2018-Ohio-544 (2018).

Jonathan R. Breuning, General Counsel, Baird Holm LLP: Jon Breuning is a 1979 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, and is currently General Counsel at Baird Holm, LLP. In that role, Mr. Breuning advises the firm and its attorneys on matters of legal ethics, professional responsibility and risk management. Mr. Breuning represents external business clients on a wide range of legal issues, with particular focus on labor and employment law. He previously served as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for a technology company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, where his responsibilities included all legal, human resource and facilities operations, and serving as the company's chief ethics officer. Mr. Breuning has been active in the Omaha business community for more than 35 years and has served on the Boards of Directors of Community Alliance, Inc., Community Alliance Housing Corporation, Heartland Family Service, the American Lung Association of Nebraska, the Combined Health Agencies Drive, Creighton University Medical Center, and Omaha Morning Rotary.

___________________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions for the presenter(s) of this webinar, please send your question via email to Allyson Felt at afelt@nebar.com. She will forward your question to the presenter(s), who will provide an answer promptly.

Active Nebraska attorneys are required to complete 10 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) each year. Two of those 10 hours must be in the field of professional responsibility (ethics). Nebraska attorneys may claim only 5 hours of distance-learning CLE per year. Webinars viewed on this portal are considered distance-learning. After completing a viewing of a webinar on this portal, you must self-report your CLE credit on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s Attorney Services Division’s website at https://mcle.wcc.ne.gov.

For more information about Nebraska CLE requirements, see the MCLE Commission’s website at https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/13449/mandatory-continuing-legal-education-mcle. For questions about CLE requirements, your own CLE transcript, or about reporting CLE credit online, contact the Nebraska Supreme Court’s Attorney Services Division at (402) 471-3137. For questions about this portal, contact the Nebraska State Bar Association at (402) 475-7091.