lawyers can’t outsource the fundamental responsibility to their clients to supervise the tasks involved.
Because virtual offices are not tethered to a specific location, they can
also lend themselves to practicing relatively seamlessly across geographic
boundaries. Virtual practitioners who
wish to practice in another jurisdiction
in which they are licensed, however,
should carefully consult the rules and
other authorities in those jurisdictions
for nuances specific to virtual offices
(in addition to any general rules or
standards that may vary from Washington). Regionally, California has
an ethics opinion—2012-184—that
addresses virtual office practice. Although Alaska and Oregon do not
have virtual office opinions, both
have ethics opinions discussing cloud
computing (Alaska Bar Ethics Opinion 2014-3; Oregon State Bar Formal
Opinion 2011-188) and electronic files
(Alaska Bar Ethics Opinion 2008-
1; Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion
2016-191). Idaho does not currently issue ethics opinions, but the comments
to its RPCs are similar to the Washington comments discussed earlier.
Finally, although a web-based practice
may allow virtual office lawyers to extend their electronic reach, they need
to remain sensitive to the unauthorized and related multijurisdictional
practice rules in any jurisdiction in
which they are not licensed.
Technology has made it possible for
both individual lawyers and even entire firms to practice as virtual offices.
Although this emerging model can
provide real benefits to the lawyers
(and their clients) involved, virtual
offices are subject to the same rules governing their traditional counterparts.
Meeting those obligations, however,
can present unique challenges when the
lawyers involved do not occupy or share
the same “brick and mortar” space.
is pleased to announce successful completion of litigation support re
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
REGIONAL CPA FIRM
Testifying expert for plaintiff counsel in case involving CPA firm
that failed to discover fraud and embezzlement in connection with
financial statement audits. Analyzed “standard of care” in connection with audit engagements, identified “red-flags” of fraud contained in the auditors workpapers compared procedures performed
by auditing firm to “standard of care” required for audits, prepared trial / mediation exhibits and Rule 26 expert report used for
settlement purposes. Result: Case settled.
William N. Holmes, CPA, CFE
Forensic Accounting ● Economic Damages
Commercial Litigation ● Full Service Public Accounting
Accounting and Tax Malpractice Litigation (Plaintiff / Defense)
Board of Accountancy Investigations
7128 SW Gonzaga Street, Suite 100 ● Portland, OR 97223
503.270.5400 ● www.pdxcpas.com
MARK J. FUCILE of Fucile & Reising LLP handles professional responsibility,
regulatory, and attorney-client privilege matters for lawyers, law firms and
legal departments throughout the Northwest. He has chaired of the WSBA
Committee on Professional Ethics and is a past member of the Oregon
State Bar Legal Ethics Committee. He is a co-editor of the WSBA Law of
Lawyering in Washington, the WSBA Legal Ethics Deskbook and the OSB Ethical Oregon
Lawyer. He also teaches legal ethics as an adjunct for the University of Oregon School of
Law at its Portland campus. He can be reached at 503-224-4895 and Mark@frllp.com.