Can a company switch outside counsel during an active matter?
Yes, but the switch must be managed as a termination and transition process, not just a new engagement. The company may choose counsel, while old counsel still has duties around notice, court approval when required, file delivery, refunds, and limited transition knowledge.
The national baseline is still ordinary professional-responsibility law. ABA Model Rule 1.16(d) says that on termination a lawyer must “take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests”, including reasonable notice, time to obtain other counsel, surrender of papers and property, and refund of any advance payment not earned or incurred. Recent ethics opinions make the same point in more operational language. New York City says firms and departing lawyers must assure an “orderly transition”. North Carolina says affected clients “must be notified”. Tennessee is skeptical of notice periods that operate less like administration and more like restraints on client choice.
That right to switch is not the same as a right to disappear from a live case. Model Rule 1.16(c) requires continued representation when a tribunal orders it. The Southern and Eastern Districts of New York make the point more bluntly: counsel “may be relieved or displaced only by order of the court”. California's Rule 3.1362 and the Northern District's local rules run the same way in slightly different procedural language. The consequence is practical rather than theoretical. A company that changes firms mid-case is running the business timeline, the court's timeline, and the outgoing firm's exit obligations at the same time. Client choice is clear. Timing is not.
Fee cleanup and transition knowledge sit in the same legal event. Unused advances and unincurred costs still belong back on termination. And the handoff is not always complete when the files move. ABA Formal Opinion 520 says former counsel may still have to convey matter knowledge learned during the representation when that information is unavailable elsewhere and important to protecting the client in the same matter, though former counsel need not create new work product or keep doing the job. That is probably the cleanest current answer to the recurring mid-deal problem: the folder often moves faster than the context.
How much notice can an incumbent firm require before departure? The administrative argument is real, but New York and Tennessee resist turning notice periods into de facto restraints on client choice. Perhaps the durable line is not
noticeversusno notice, but flexible notice versus restrictive notice.Mid-deal transitions still look more operational than doctrinal. The source set did not surface a general national rule equivalent to the litigation withdrawal rules for ongoing transactions. Perhaps the harder disputes will keep turning on completeness, closing mechanics, and opinion-letter dependencies rather than on any general prohibition on switching firms.
Sources for this answer
Commentary
A.1 American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.16(d)Supports the cited proposition. (American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.16(d))
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests
See American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.16(d).
Commentary
A.2 New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2023-1Supports the cited proposition. (New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2023-1)
orderly transition
See New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2023-1.
Primary law
A.3 North Carolina State Bar, 2025 Formal Ethics Opinion 1Supports the cited proposition. (North Carolina State Bar, 2025 Formal Ethics Opinion 1)
must be notified
See North Carolina State Bar, 2025 Formal Ethics Opinion 1.
Commentary
A.4 Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, Opinion 2023-F-169When an attorney departs a law firm, both the firm and the departing attorney have an ethical obligation to provide clients with notice and the opportunity to choose their future legal representation without undue interference.
Departing lawyers and their law firms have an ethical duty to protect client interests when a lawyer leaves a law firm.
See Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, Opinion 2023-F-169.
Primary law
A.5 SDNY and EDNY Joint Local RulesPDFSupports the cited proposition. (SDNY and EDNY Joint Local Rules)
may be relieved or displaced only by order of the court
See SDNY and EDNY Joint Local Rules.
Primary law
A.6 Judicial Branch of California, Rule 3.1362California Rule of Court 3.1362 establishes the mandatory procedural requirements for an attorney seeking to be relieved as counsel, including the specific forms to be used, service requirements, and the exemption from filing a memorandum.
A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).
See Judicial Branch of California, Rule 3.1362.
Primary law
A.7 Northern District of California, Civil Local RulesThe Civil Local Rules of the Northern District of California supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and govern practice in civil actions before the Court.
Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.
See Northern District of California, Civil Local Rules.
Commentary
A.8 American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 520Formal Opinion 520 clarifies that lawyers have a limited duty to respond to requests for information from former clients or successor counsel when the information is necessary to protect client interests and unavailable elsewhere, though this does not extend to performing new legal work.
there are limited situations where a lawyer must comply with requests for information from successor counsel or a former client.
See American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 520.
Commentary
A.9 ILTA, Offboarding: Managing the Challenge of Attorney ExitsLaw firms must implement formal, vetted procedures for attorney offboarding to ensure compliance with ethical obligations and protect client data during file transfers.
a typical offboarding request for file transfers necessitates the checks and balances scrutiny of a risk partner or general counsel (GC) to ensure the firm is meeting its ethical obligation.
See ILTA, Offboarding: Managing the Challenge of Attorney Exits.
Commentary
A.10 Association of Legal Administrators, Best Practices for Integrating New Attorneys and Departing AttorneysPDFLaw firms have an ethical and legal obligation to facilitate the orderly transfer of client files and property when an attorney departs, while avoiding unauthorized data transfers and the dangerous assertion of retaining liens.
MUST COMPLY WITH OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CLIENT FILES TO NEW LAW FIRM UPON CLIENT REQUEST
See Association of Legal Administrators, Best Practices for Integrating New Attorneys and Departing Attorneys.
What files must old counsel give a company after switching firms?
The answer depends on state law, but the baseline is broad access to materials needed for the representation. New York is especially file-access oriented, while retaining-lien leverage varies sharply across states.
File access is broad in principle and state-specific in scope. California requires prompt release of “all client materials and property”, including items reasonably necessary to the client's representation. New York's Sage Realty decision is the broad-access anchor because it adopted an entire file presumption for the client, including paid-for work product, subject to narrow exceptions. Virginia has moved the other direction on retaining liens, saying the old common-law lien is overruled by Rule 1.16(e). D.C. still recognizes only a narrow unpaid-work-product exception and describes retaining liens on client files as “strongly disfavored”.
Published law-firm commentary is more convergent than adversarial. Pullman & Comley says the departure rules start from the proposition that clients are not property, and it favors a joint notice with a client ballot showing whether the matter stays, follows, or goes elsewhere. The same firm also says the incumbent should not cut the departing lawyer off from the files, email, or court-filing systems needed to protect current matters during the notice period.
Dentons adds the other side of that same point: before client direction is clear, a departing lawyer should not copy or remove matter files unilaterally. The Michigan bar's 2025 ethics article is blunter about delay after the client decides. It says there is “no ethical basis for delay” and that holding files hostage is impermissible.
Yankwitt's New York litigation commentary is where the consensus narrows. It agrees that the client chooses. Its point is that retaining liens can still leave successor counsel facing summary-judgment or trial deadlines without the file. So the disagreement in the firm layer is not over whether a company may switch. It is over how much leverage the old firm still has once bills go unpaid in a retaining-lien jurisdiction.
How broad is the client file at the digital margins?
Sage Realtypoints toward an entire-file presumption, but D.C. materials still reflect narrower end-product instincts and unpaid-work-product exceptions. The corroborated source set does not yield a nationally settled answer for every digital artifact created during a matter.When does nonpayment justify withholding? Virginia and D.C. narrow that power considerably. New York still gives the old firm materially more leverage in some pending matters. So the same unpaid invoice can be a cleanup issue in one state and a real transition blocker in another.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
B.1 State Bar of California, Rule 1.16(e)(1)PDFSupports the cited proposition. (State Bar of California, Rule 1.16(e)(1))
all client materials and property
See State Bar of California, Rule 1.16(e)(1).
Commentary
B.2 State Bar of Texas, Rule 1.15(d)Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.08(a) prohibits a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client or acquiring an adverse pecuniary interest unless the terms are fair and reasonable, fully disclosed in writing, and the client provides informed written consent after being advised of the right to seek independent counsel.
A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client, or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, unless: (1) the terms of the transaction or acquisition are fair and reasonable to the client
See State Bar of Texas, Rule 1.15(d).
Commentary
B.3 The Florida Bar, Rule 4-1.16(d)PDFThe Florida Rules of Professional Conduct impose a strict duty of confidentiality on lawyers, requiring them to protect client information from unauthorized disclosure and limiting any permitted disclosures to the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the disclosure.
A lawyer must not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.
See The Florida Bar, Rule 4-1.16(d).
Case law
B.4 Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLP, 91 N.Y.2d 30 (1997)Upon termination of the attorney-client relationship, a client is presumptively entitled to full access to the attorney's entire file on a represented matter, including work product, subject to narrow exceptions for internal law office documents or duties owed to third parties.
Affording the client presumptive access to the attorney's entire file on the represented matter, subject to narrow exceptions, is also supported, although not necessarily dictated, by the lawyer's ethical obligations arising out of representation in a given matter.
See Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLP, 91 N.Y.2d 30 (1997).
Commentary
B.5 New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 766Under New York ethics and law, a lawyer must provide a former client with access to their files upon request, subject to reasonable fees for assembly and delivery.
Former client and/or successor counsel is presumptively entitled to access all attorney files.
See New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 766.
Commentary
B.6 Virginia State Bar, Ethics and Conduct materialsVirginia legal ethics standards require lawyers to exercise independent judgment, verify the accuracy of work product, and ensure billing practices are reasonable when utilizing generative artificial intelligence tools.
A lawyer may not charge an hourly fee in excess of the time actually spent on the case and may not bill for time saved by using generative AI.
See Virginia State Bar, Ethics and Conduct materials.
Commentary
B.7 Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16Under Rule 1.9 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is prohibited from representing a new client in a matter that is the same as or substantially related to a matter handled for a former client if the new client's interests are materially adverse to the former client, and the lawyer must maintain the confidentiality of information gained during the former representation.
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client
See Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16.
Commentary
B.8 Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1690PDFUnder Virginia ethics rules, a lawyer may not assert a common law retaining lien over a former client's file if doing so would materially prejudice the client's interests or interfere with the continued protection of those interests.
This compendium opinion expresses the sense of the Committee that the lawyers= retaining lien, though recognized at common law, is not ethically permissible whenever its assertion would prejudice or imperil Athe continued protection of a client=s interests.@
See Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 1690.
Commentary
B.9 D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 250Supports the cited proposition. (D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 250)
strongly disfavored
See D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 250.
Commentary
B.10 D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 372When a law firm dissolves, its members must continue to meet their ethical obligations to clients, including providing timely notice of the dissolution and ensuring that clients retain the right to choose their own counsel.
The paramount principle governing the ethical obligations of a law firm and its members in connection with the process of dissolving the firm is that the law firm and its members must continue to competently, zealously and diligently represent and communicate with the clients during the dissolution process.
See D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 372.
Commentary
B.11 D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 333Under D.C. ethics rules, an attorney must surrender the entire client file, including internal work product, upon the termination of representation, as the District of Columbia rejects the limited "end-product" approach.
Upon the termination of representation, an attorney is required to surrender to a client, to the client’s legal representative, or to a successor in interest the entire "file" containing the papers and property to which the client is entitled.
See D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 333.
Law-firm commentary
B.12 Pullman & Comley commentaryWhen a lawyer departs a law firm, ethical obligations prioritize client autonomy and the lawyer's duty to communicate, prohibiting firms from restricting notice to clients or interfering with the lawyer's ability to represent them competently during the transition.
a departing lawyer “should communicate with all clients with whom [he or she] has had significant client contact that the lawyer intends to change firms.”
See Pullman & Comley, Risk Managers' Alert: Ethical Obligations for Firms and Departing Lawyers.
Law-firm commentary
B.13 Pullman & Comley commentaryWhen a lawyer departs a firm, both the lawyer and the firm must prioritize the client's right to choose counsel while adhering to fiduciary duties and ethical obligations regarding client notification, solicitation, and the handling of firm property.
Virtually all courts and ethics bodies have concluded that a departing lawyer is permitted— prior to departure—to notify his or her clients of an imminent move from the firm.
See Pullman & Comley, Law Firm Breakups and Lawyer Departures: The Ethical Dos and Don'ts.
Law-firm commentary
B.14 Dentons commentaryStrictly necessary cookies are essential for website functionality and their use is justified by the legitimate interest in maintaining technical operations and providing requested services.
These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website and use of its features, and therefore cannot be switched off in our systems.
See Dentons, How Associates Can Ethically Move to a New Law Firm.
Commentary
B.15 State Bar of Michigan, Ethical duties of a law firm when a lawyer leavesSupports the cited proposition. (State Bar of Michigan, Ethical duties of a law firm when a lawyer leaves)
no ethical basis for delay
See State Bar of Michigan, Ethical duties of a law firm when a lawyer leaves.
Commentary
B.16 Michigan State Bar, Changing Firms GuidePDFWhen a lawyer departs a law firm, the primary ethical obligation of both the firm and the departing lawyer is to protect the client's interest and respect the client's right to choose their own legal counsel.
In summary, clients do not in any sense belong to a firm, and each client has the right to decide for themselves which lawyer or lawyers they wish to handle their affairs.
See Michigan State Bar, Changing Firms Guide.
Commentary
B.17 Yankwitt LLP commentaryUnder New York law, an attorney discharged without cause may assert a retaining lien over a client's file as security for unpaid fees, subject to limited exceptions such as discharge for cause, exigent circumstances, or the provision of adequate security.
a lawyer discharged without cause is entitled to a common law retaining lien on the client’s file in the lawyer’s possession as security for compensation and is entitled to recover the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered as a condition of releasing the file.
See Yankwitt LLP, Best Practices When Picking Up a Case from Prior Counsel.
Does switching outside counsel waive privilege when matter files move?
Usually no, but privilege can be damaged by poor transfer controls. The risk is not the substitution itself; it is who receives the data, how it moves, and whether confidentiality safeguards are defensible.
The privilege point is narrower than the market rhetoric. Changing firms does not itself waive privilege. The live question is transfer method. Model Rule 1.6(b)(7) permits limited disclosures for conflicts only if they do not “compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client”. Model Rule 1.6(c) separately requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure, and ABA Formal Opinion 477R applies the same logic to electronic transmission. The law is technology-neutral. It is not process-neutral.
The third consequence is that privilege usually survives the substitution but can still be damaged by sloppy transfer architecture. The weak points are overbroad exports, insecure transmission, unclear client authority, and moving material before conflicts and access rights are resolved. Model Rule 1.6 and 477R make that a facts-and-process inquiry rather than a paper-versus-digital inquiry. For companies moving to tech-forward counsel, that means the legal question is rarely whether the new firm uses AI. It is who can see the matter data, what systems touch it, and whether those systems sit inside a defensible confidentiality boundary.
Sources for this answer
Commentary
C.1 American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.6Supports the cited proposition. (American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.6)
compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client
See American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.6.
Commentary
C.2 American Bar Association, Comment on Rule 1.6Lawyers have an ongoing, fundamental duty to maintain client confidentiality and must take reasonable, competent measures to safeguard client information from unauthorized access or disclosure.
A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation.
See American Bar Association, Comment on Rule 1.6.
Commentary
C.3 American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 477RLawyers must implement reasonable security measures when transmitting client information over the internet, with heightened precautions required based on the nature of the information or specific legal and contractual obligations.
A lawyer generally may transmit information relating to the representation of a client over the internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct where the lawyer has undertaken reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access.
See American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 477R.
Why can switching to AI-forward counsel still slow legal work?
Because the transition remains a legal handoff before it becomes a technology improvement. AI-forward counsel may speed later workflows, but the first move still requires client approval, file transfer controls, metadata mapping, and recovery of context that may not be in the file.
The market pressure behind these transitions is real. A March 2026 Thomson Reuters Institute summary said more than half of surveyed corporate legal professionals believe outside firms should use AI on their matters, and an October 2025 ACC survey described a transparency gap over whether outside counsel are using AI at all. Reuters put the alternative legal services market at $28.5 billion in January 2025, while Bloomberg Law and TechCrunch described firms like Crosby as selling speed and workflow redesign rather than only hourly staffing. That enlarges the set of plausible successor firms. It does not change the transition rules.
The first consequence is that a counsel change is not a vendor swap. Companies that budget only for file delivery are budgeting only for the easy half. ILTA's offboarding materials emphasize documented client approval, controlled transfer procedures, and audit trails about what moved. ALA's guidance says the transition period has to cover notice, matters staying behind, and permission to transfer the ones that are leaving. A mailbox export, a diligence-room zip file, or a stack of PDFs can be enough to prove transfer happened and still not be enough for successor counsel to act at the same speed.
The fourth consequence is that the near-term effect can be slower even when the long-term goal is faster. Tech-forward firms sell shorter cycle times. But the first transition often requires successor counsel to rebuild playbooks, map metadata, and recover context that never made it into the file. Formal Opinion 520 matters here precisely because it recognizes that an orderly handoff can require more than document delivery when material knowledge exists only in the old team. Companies that switch firms for workflow speed often discover that the transition itself is a legal operation first and a tooling project second.
- How much unwritten transition help remains after the file moves?
Formal Opinion 520narrows the issue but does not end it. The line is still factual: what is already known, unavailable elsewhere, and material to the same matter. That probably leaves room for future fights about whether the transfer duty stops at the file boundary or extends a little beyond it.
Sources for this answer
Commentary
D.1 Thomson Reuters, The great AI disconnectA lack of transparency and data-sharing regarding AI usage between law firms and corporate clients creates uncertainty that may erode trust and complicate the transition toward value-based billing models.
Most corporate legal professionals do not know whether their outside legal counsel are using AI in handling their client matters, leaving both law departments and their firms in a state of AI uncertainty.
See Thomson Reuters, The great AI disconnect.
Commentary
D.2 Association of Corporate Counsel, Generative AI's Growing Strategic Value for Corporate Law DepartmentsGenerative AI is driving a shift toward increased in-house legal efficiency and is fundamentally altering the traditional billing and service relationship between corporate legal departments and outside counsel.
Our findings reveal a decisive shift from passive planning to active implementation, with the in-house legal community moving swiftly to integrate this technology into their daily work.
See Association of Corporate Counsel, Generative AI's Growing Strategic Value for Corporate Law Departments.
Commentary
D.3 Reuters, Alternative legal services market reaches $28.5 bln, report saysThe alternative legal services market has grown to $28.5 billion as corporate legal departments and law firms increasingly utilize these providers for specialized expertise and cost-effective, high-volume tasks.
The market for legal services that are not performed by traditional law firms has hit a record $28.5 billion
See Reuters, Alternative legal services market reaches $28.5 bln, report says.
Commentary
D.4 Bloomberg Law, AI-Powered Law Firms Test the Bounds of Legal Work by RobotsThe integration of artificial intelligence into legal practice creates regulatory uncertainty regarding the unauthorized practice of law and professional liability, as current jurisdictional definitions remain in flux.
The definition of the practice of law varies by jurisdiction, and how AI use affects that is a developing issue.
See Bloomberg Law, AI-Powered Law Firms Test the Bounds of Legal Work by Robots.
Commentary
D.5 TechCrunch, Sequoia-backed Crosby launches a new kind of AI-powered law firmCrosby operates as a law firm that integrates proprietary AI software with human legal oversight to accelerate the contract review process for startups.
Crosby is an actual law firm using AI to provide legal services at a speed never before possible.
See TechCrunch, Sequoia-backed Crosby launches a new kind of AI-powered law firm.
Commentary
D.6 ILTA, Offboarding: Managing the Challenge of Attorney ExitsLaw firms must implement formal, vetted procedures for attorney offboarding to ensure compliance with ethical obligations and protect client data during file transfers.
a typical offboarding request for file transfers necessitates the checks and balances scrutiny of a risk partner or general counsel (GC) to ensure the firm is meeting its ethical obligation.
See ILTA, Offboarding: Managing the Challenge of Attorney Exits.
Commentary
D.7 ILTA, P2P Summer22 file-transfer articleAutomating client file transfers reduces the risk of human error and improves operational efficiency compared to manual, unstructured processes.
IT directors and records managers increasingly recognize the inefficiencies and risk of human error involved in continuing to handle client file transfers manually.
See ILTA, P2P Summer22 file-transfer article.
Commentary
D.8 Association of Legal Administrators, Best Practices for Integrating New Attorneys and Departing AttorneysPDFLaw firms have an ethical and legal obligation to facilitate the orderly transfer of client files and property when an attorney departs, while avoiding unauthorized data transfers and the dangerous assertion of retaining liens.
MUST COMPLY WITH OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CLIENT FILES TO NEW LAW FIRM UPON CLIENT REQUEST
See Association of Legal Administrators, Best Practices for Integrating New Attorneys and Departing Attorneys.
Commentary
D.9 American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 520Formal Opinion 520 clarifies that lawyers have a limited duty to respond to requests for information from former clients or successor counsel when the information is necessary to protect client interests and unavailable elsewhere, though this does not extend to performing new legal work.
there are limited situations where a lawyer must comply with requests for information from successor counsel or a former client.
See American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 520.
What happens if old counsel withholds files after unpaid bills?
The answer is highly state-specific. New York may give old counsel more leverage through a retaining lien, while Virginia and D.C. narrow that leverage and treat client-protection duties as the controlling concern.
The second consequence is timing compression. In a live case, the business deadline, the court's deadline, and the outgoing firm's duty not to prejudice the client all continue at once. If the last bill is disputed, the switch can turn into two matters: the underlying deal or case, and a second fight over access to the file or security for unpaid fees. That second fight is much sharper in New York than in Virginia or D.C., which means the same transition can be mostly administrative in one state and strategically expensive in another.
Sources for this answer
Commentary
E.1 American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.16(d)Supports the cited proposition. (American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.16(d))
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests
See American Bar Association, Model Rule 1.16(d).
Primary law
E.2 SDNY and EDNY Joint Local RulesPDFSupports the cited proposition. (SDNY and EDNY Joint Local Rules)
may be relieved or displaced only by order of the court
See SDNY and EDNY Joint Local Rules.
Case law
E.3 Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLP, 91 N.Y.2d 30 (1997)Upon termination of the attorney-client relationship, a client is presumptively entitled to full access to the attorney's entire file on a represented matter, including work product, subject to narrow exceptions for internal law office documents or duties owed to third parties.
Affording the client presumptive access to the attorney's entire file on the represented matter, subject to narrow exceptions, is also supported, although not necessarily dictated, by the lawyer's ethical obligations arising out of representation in a given matter.
See Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLP, 91 N.Y.2d 30 (1997).
Commentary
E.4 Virginia State Bar, Ethics and Conduct materialsVirginia legal ethics standards require lawyers to exercise independent judgment, verify the accuracy of work product, and ensure billing practices are reasonable when utilizing generative artificial intelligence tools.
A lawyer may not charge an hourly fee in excess of the time actually spent on the case and may not bill for time saved by using generative AI.
See Virginia State Bar, Ethics and Conduct materials.
Commentary
E.5 D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 250Supports the cited proposition. (D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 250)
strongly disfavored
See D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 250.
Commentary
E.6 Yankwitt LLP commentaryUnder New York law, an attorney discharged without cause may assert a retaining lien over a client's file as security for unpaid fees, subject to limited exceptions such as discharge for cause, exigent circumstances, or the provision of adequate security.
a lawyer discharged without cause is entitled to a common law retaining lien on the client’s file in the lawyer’s possession as security for compensation and is entitled to recover the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered as a condition of releasing the file.
See Yankwitt LLP, Best Practices When Picking Up a Case from Prior Counsel.