Here’s the first of two CLE programs that I’m doing next week Thursday. Through the magic of the internet, we’re doing a nationwide webinar on ethics issues, followed by an in-person eminent domain conference in Honolulu.
On Thursday, May 10, 2012, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT (10 a.m. PDT, 7 a.m. HST), I’ll be presenting “Municipal Law: Navigating Local Government Recusal Laws, Conflicts of Interest and Government Immunity” on-line, along with my colleagues Michael Donaldson, Michael Kamprath, and Professor Patricia Salkin. We’ll be discussing ethical issues, using two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases as context: Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, and Filarsky v. Delia. Here’s a description of the program:
Local government counsel regularly face a myriad of ethical issues. Key problematic areas concern recusal laws, conflict of interest, identifying the client, and the scope and applicability of qualified immunity for municipal counsel—whether a government employee or private counsel.
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct recognize that client identification in the government context—and the resulting duties—can be particularly troublesome. Recent cases before the U.S. Supreme Court also raise relevant issues for municipal counsel.
Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan addresses a recusal requirement for public officials facing a potential conflict of interest. Filarsky v. Delia (pending review by the Supreme Court) held that private counsel retained by the government is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Listen as our panel of municipal law attorneys discusses the scope and applicability of government immunity for government and private counsel retained by government. The panel will also offer practical solutions to ethical issues concerning local government recusal laws and conflict of interest.
Hope you can join us. More details, including registration information, here.