Academic

According to an email I received today, the Texas Bar, of which I am a member, disclosed the email addresses of nearly 63,000 attorneys three days ago.  On August 16, in response to a lawsuit filed two days prior by Fordham Law Student Marni von Wilpert, the bar association decided it was too expensive to fight the lawsuit that asked for a declaratory judgment holding that not disclosing the emails was in violation of state law.  Apparently, the Texas Government Code provides that email addresses of bar members are not available for disclosure if the holder of the email has notified the bar that she doesn't wish her address to be disclosed.  I'm betting most people were not aware of this "opt-out" policy.  So, the bar sent an email on August 13, reminding attorneys of their ability to opt out.  I checked my "Deleted" folder, and I received this email after 9:00 p.m. on Friday, August 13.  The bar disclosed the emails on Monday, August 16.  I would like to know how many people opted out over the weekend.  The email did not mention any type of pending request (made in June 2010) for email addresses or imminent filing of a lawsuit.

So, why did von Wilpert want the email addresses?  The addresses were requested so that von Wilpert could send emails to voting members about proposed amendments to a Texas Discipline Rule regarding attorney-client sex.  From what I can piece together, von Wilpert, who seems like a very impressive person, spent her summer at the Texas Civil Rights Project.  This policy initiative may have been part of her duties or something she just got interested in.  For whatever reason, I received an email on August 17 with the subject "Proposed New Disciplinary Rule Defective."  I am guessing this was from her.  However, the author was "GA78768" and the return email GA78768@gmail.com.  So, guess where the email went?  I deleted it without reading it.

Of course now, I have read it. I'm not particularly swayed that the new rule is defective.  The email author stresses that a lot of attorney-client sex can still happen -- the Texas rule prohibits the relationship if the attorney is personally representing the client and if the relationship was pre-existing.  One point the email makes is that this might allow a lot of sex in the corporate representation context.  (Perhaps the Glom should host a forum on outside counsel-in-house counsel sexual relations.  That doesn't even sound interesting.)  I would have to see some empirical data that suggested that this type of relationship was a problem or even a theoretical model suggesting that the power imbalance makes this a dangerous relationship.  In fact, the power dynamic runs the other way!  Anyway, I don't want to make light of attorney-client abuses, but I would have to be persuaded this one is a particular problem.

The thing I don't understand is why the email is from this pseudonymic sender?  The email has listed a number of signees, all Austin attorneys or former attorneys, including a former professor of mine at the University of Texas.  Couldn't one of this signers be the sender?  If Professor Blais had sent me an email, I would have read it.  GA78768, not so much.  If you are going to go to so much trouble to get the emails, then increase the chances that the recipients will read it!

By the way, I'm opting out now.