Which older Alaska ethics opinions did the bar withdraw or modify as outdated or superseded?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked to review all Alaska ethics opinions and determine which should be withdrawn. The opinion withdrew a set of opinions as inconsistent with the activities in which an attorney may now engage to advertise services or place a name before the public: 68-2 (unadopted), 69-1, 69-2, 69-3, 71-2, 72-1, 75-1, 76-2, 76-6 (unadopted), and 78-2. It modified Opinion 69-4 to delete "improper advertising" as a reason to prohibit use of the name "Anchorage Legal Center," while keeping in force the prohibition on that name as potentially misleading.

The opinion withdrew several other opinions for reasons specific to each. Opinion 75-2 was withdrawn because disqualification for prior representation is addressed by proposed Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 (and Aleut Corp. v. McGarvey), and disqualification when the attorney becomes a witness is addressed by proposed Rule 3.7 (and Munn v. Bristol Bay Housing Authority). Opinion 76-4 was withdrawn as an earlier version of Opinion 78-3, which remained in force. Opinion 76-7, on disclosure of physical evidence of a crime, was withdrawn because the issue was addressed in Morrell v. State.

The opinion also withdrew several unadopted opinions: 82-1 (duty to accept appointments for indigents) in light of DeLisio v. Alaska Superior Court and Wood v. Superior Court; and 82-3 (obligations of Alaska Legal Services Corporation lawyers if funding were cut) as directed at a moot point. Opinion 84-6 was withdrawn because the unauthorized-practice prohibition for disbarred and suspended attorneys then appeared in Alaska Bar Rule 15(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Alaska Bar Association's adoption of the 2009 revisions to the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (and before Alaska adopted the Rules of Professional Conduct at all; it applies the former Code of Professional Responsibility and refers to then-proposed Alaska Rules). The opinions it withdrew or modified, and the rules and cases it cites, may have been further changed since. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or status mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why did the Alaska Bar withdraw so many of its older opinions in 89-2?

A: The opinion withdrew a group of opinions as inconsistent with the activities a lawyer may now use to advertise or place a name before the public, and withdrew others because the issues had since been addressed by rules or court decisions.

Q: What happened to Opinion 69-4 on the "Anchorage Legal Center" name?

A: The opinion modified 69-4 to drop "improper advertising" as a reason, but kept in full force the prohibition on using that name on the ground that it is potentially misleading.

Q: Were the withdrawn opinions removed because they were wrong?

A: The opinion withdrew most of them because they had been overtaken: by broader permissible advertising, by proposed Rules of Professional Conduct (such as Rules 1.9 and 3.7), by Alaska court decisions, by a superseding opinion (78-3), or by Alaska Bar Rule 15(b).

Background and rules framework

The opinion is an administrative review of the Committee's own prior opinions under the former Alaska Code of Professional Responsibility. It pointed to the then-proposed Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, citing Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients) and Rule 3.7 (lawyer as witness), and to Alaska Bar Rule 15(b) on the unauthorized practice of law by disbarred or suspended attorneys, as having displaced several of the withdrawn opinions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (then-proposed Alaska Rules; cf. Model Rules):

• Proposed Alaska Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients) (cf. Model Rule 1.9)
• Proposed Alaska Rule 3.7 (lawyer as witness) (cf. Model Rule 3.7)
• Alaska Bar Rule 15(b) (unauthorized practice by disbarred or suspended attorneys)

Cases:

• Aleut Corp. v. McGarvey, 573 P.2d 473 (Alaska 1978), disqualification for prior representation
• Munn v. Bristol Bay Housing Authority, Op. No. 3458 (Alaska June 30, 1989), disqualification of lawyer as witness
• Morrell v. State, 575 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1978), physical evidence of a crime
• DeLisio v. Alaska Superior Court, 740 P.2d 437 (Alaska 1987); Wood v. Superior Court, 690 P.2d 1225 (Alaska 1984), appointment to represent indigents

Other opinions cited:

• Withdraws Alaska Ethics Opinions 68-2, 69-1, 69-2, 69-3, 71-2, 72-1, 75-1, 75-2, 76-2, 76-4, 76-6, 76-7, 78-2, 82-1, 82-3, 84-6; modifies 69-4

See also

• CA Op. 2004-167: Firm Trade Names and Government Titles
• AL Ethics Op. 1993-11: 'Associates' in a Firm Name
• AL Ethics Op. 2003-01: Attorney Advertising Issues

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/89-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION 89-2
Re:

Withdrawal or Modification of Outdated or Superseded Ethics
Opinions

The Committee has been asked to review all Alaska Ethics Opinions, and
determine which of them should be withdrawn. The Committee has done so.
The following opinions are withdrawn as being inconsistent with the
activities in which an attorney may now engage to advertise his services, or
place his or her name before the public:
68-2 (unadopted)
69-1
69-2
69-3
71-2
72-1
75-1
76-2
76-6 (unadopted)
78-2
Opinion No. 69-4 is modified to delete "improper advertising." as a reason
to prohibit the use of the name "Anchorage Legal Center". The prohibition
against the use of that name for the reason that it is potentially misleading
shall continue in full force and effect.
Opinion No. 75-2 is withdrawn. The issue of attorney disqualification
because of prior representation is addressed by Rule 1.9 of the proposed
Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, and discussed in
Aleut Corp. v. McGarvey, 573 P.2d 473 (Alaska 1978). The issue of
disqualification when the attorney becomes a witness is addressed by Rule 3.7
of the proposed Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, and discussed in
Munn v. Bristol Bay Housing Authority, Op. No. 3458 (June 30, 1989).
Opinion No. 76-4 is withdrawn. Opinion No. 76-4 is an earlier version of
Opinion No. 78-3, which shall continue in full force and effect.

-1-

Opinion No. 76-7, relating to the disclosure of physical evidence of a
crime, is withdrawn. This opinion was discussed, and the applicable rule set
forth, in Morrell v. State, 575 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1978).
Opinion No. 82-1 (unadopted) relating to the duty of an attorney to accept
appointment for representation of indigents is withdrawn because of
DeLisio v. Alaska Superior Court, 740 P.2d 437 (Alaska 1987) and
Wood v. Superior Court, 690 P.2d 1225 (Alaska 1984).
Opinion No. 82-3 (unadopted) is withdrawn. Opinion No. 82-3, dealing
with the ethical obligations of lawyers employed by Alaska Legal Services
Corporation should federal or state funding for that corporation be eliminated
or substantially reduced, is directed at a moot point.
Opinion No. 84-6 is withdrawn. The unauthorized practice of law
prohibition applicable to disbarred and suspended attorneys now appears in
Alaska Bar Rule 15(b).

Submitted by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee this 31st day of
August, 1989.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on September 8, 1989.

manul68
G:\DS\EC&OPS\OPINIONS\89-2.DOC

-2-