EDITED BY:
Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor
PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
PUBLICATION DATE: June 30, 2026
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 6
FEATURE ARTICLE: Money, Money, Money
The Rules of Professional Responsibility do not say much about lawyer compensation. Rule 1.5 requires that fees charged to clients be either reasonable or not unreasonable depending upon each jurisdiction’s wording of the Rule. Of course, fees charged to clients are intimately related to lawyers’ ultimate compensation. But the Rules don’t say anything specific about salaries.
Over the past quarter century, lawyer compensation has increased enormously. In 1979, when I began to work full time at Cravath in New York City, I earned $30,000 per year with the possibility of a small bonus (in my case, $3,000). In today’s money, that $33,000 is worth $151,000. In 1979, Cravath and the larger New York City firms generally paid lawyers more than most other firms (a few boutiques firms paid a bit more,).
The salaries for associates at the largest American law firms have recently just been announced. First year Cravath associates will now be paid a base salary of $235,000 per year. Indeed, the new big firm associate salary scale, according to Larson Maddox, is:
. . .
AUTHORITY: Capacity Conflicts
In its Ethics Opinion 2026-2, the Alaska Bar Association has again raised interest in a subject that pops up in lawyers’ minds every few decades: the “capacity problem.” The capacity problem occurs when lawyer caseloads get so great that they produce an ethics problem. Whether because of economic pressure on lawyers to bill more or government lawyers who are assigned excessive workloads while dealing with staffing shortages, many lawyers can find themselves overwhelmed. Sometimes, the demands are so significant that lawyers are unable to represent their clients with the competence demanded by Rule 1.1 or unable to devote sufficient time to their clients as required also by Rules 1.3 and 1.4.
It could be said that Rule 1.7(a)(2) addresses this specifically:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(2) there is a substantial risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
The reasoning behind classifying a workload overload under Rule 1.7(a)(2) is the concept that, when one has too many clients to handle them all competently, then the lawyer is, in fact, “materially limited” as to each client by the multiplicity of clients as a whole.
Ethics Opinion 2026-2, the Alaska Bar Association reiterates the opinion of the Alaska Supreme Court that “[a]s a caseload increases, the attorney’s ability to bring to each case the thoroughness and preparation necessary to provide competent representation may diminish.” Office of Public Advocacy v. Superior Court, First Judicial District, 566 P.3d 235, 249 (Alaska 2025). The Alaska Supreme Court notably concluded that the Office of Public Advocacy was required to represent indigent clients who could not be represented by the public defender agency because of a conflict of interests—including “a conflict of interest due to lack of capacity.” Id. at 252.
One of the greatest difficulties in the application of Rule 1.7(a)(2) to workload issues is how to determine that a heavy caseload is too great and becomes a capacity problem. The Alaska Opinion adopts the guidance of ABA Formal Opinion 06-441. Although the ABA Opinion focuses primarily on public defenders and work overload, its principles are clearly applicable to all lawyers. Opinion 06-441 states:
Rule 1.3 states that a lawyer’s workload “must be controlled so that each matter may be handled competently.” The Rules do not prescribe a formula to be used in determining whether a particular workload is excessive. National standards as to numerical caseload limits have been cited by the American Bar Association. Although such standards may be considered, they are not the sole factor in determining if a workload is excessive. Such a determination depends not only on the number of cases, but also on such factors as case complexity, the availability of support services, the lawyer’s experience and ability, and the lawyer’s nonrepresentational duties If a lawyer believes that her workload is such that she is unable to meet the basic ethical obligations required of her in the representation of a client, she must not continue the representation of that client or, if representation has not yet begun, she must decline the representation.
Today, many firms are adopting AI and reducing the number of human lawyers. Their assumption seems to be that AI can do many tasks formerly done by lawyers and that the caseloads of the human lawyers can be increased. This assumption is being challenged every day with more and more court documents containing fictitious cases (so-called hallucinations) and errors due to overdependence on AI. To the extent that this will lead to unexpectedly higher workloads on lawyers who discover that AI use may not reduce lawyer time as hoped for, lawyer capacity and workloads may again become an ethical problem. In such a scenario, Alaska Opinion 02-2026 and ABA Opinion 06-441 become even more important.
ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Articles on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
1.) Josh Chafetz, Corruption and the Supreme Court, 36 Yale J.L. & Human. 165 (2025).
In this Article, Georgetown University Law Professor Josh Chafetz examines the United States Supreme Court justices’ rhetoric about corruption and the consequences of their rhetorical choices.
2.) Colloquium: The Professional Socialization of Lawyers, 94 Fordham L. Rev. 1255 (March 2026).
The entire collection of articles collected for Fordham Law Review’s March 2026 colloquium on The Professional Socialization of Lawyers provides excellent reading—and thinking—material.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST: The Comic Blackstone
Man, as we are all aware, is a creature endowed with reason and free will: but when he goes to law as plaintiff, his reason seems to have deserted him: while, if he stands in the position of defendant, it is generally against his free will; and thus, that “noblest of animals,” Man, is in a very ignoble predicament.
— Gilbert Abbot à Beckett, The Comic Blackstone 15 (1863).
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 6
About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 26 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.
We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.
When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.
