“Ethics opinions are MSBA work product: a benefit to members who pay their dues…An ethics opinion is a legal opinion about what it or is not permissible under the rules. If you want legal advice, pay for it. The “rules”, by the way, are published and are available to the public. As are the elements of negligence. Do you tell your clients for free how to prove their negligence cases?”

How’s that for a venal, snotty answer? In fact, there are no “hidden” laws or principles related to negligence, nor are the standards for what constitutes negligence and how it is proven in court only available for a fee. The legal ethics opinions, on the other hand, may be crucial to allowing non-lawyers  know when they are being victimized by unethical members of the Maryland bar. How convenient that the Bar hides these from the view of the group of citizens that have the most urgent need to know about them.

As for non-Maryland lawyers who have occasion to practice in the state, as many do, one would think that the Bar would want them to have ready access to a determination of how some aspects of legal ethics are treated differently in Maryland—or does the bar want foreign lawyers to breach the rules, even though Maryland clients may be harmed as a result?

And has the Maryland State Bar never heard of the term “professionalism”? Sure it has! You know, that concept that lawyers are dedicated to the public good, and practice law for the betterment of society, not purely for profit? I know that the Maryland Bar, as well as municipal and county  bars in the state, urge its members, in the spirit of professionalism, to provide a significant number of hours of pro bono work—to donate their time to represent the indigent. But they won’t make their legal ethics opinions available to these needy clients so they know when their lawyers are screwing up, because they are “work product” and the Bar refuses to divulge them without payment?

What sense does that make? Every other state bar association—except for Arkansas— has sensibly concluded that all lawyers, not just those in a particularly jurisdiction, should be able to examine and compare legal ethics opinions across the nation, and that they should be available to the public as well. They have concluded this because legal ethics is difficult and constantly evolving, and the more information and guidance there are for both lawyers and their clients, the better off everyone is.

The Maryland Bar has decided to make its ethics opinions  inaccessible, obscure and expensive, which means it doesn’t comprehend what legal ethics are for, why they are important, and how to use them.

Amazing!