How would you imagine legal ethics rules of professional conduct might be presented in a “Chicago style”? During the ABA Business Law Section’s 2026 Fall Meeting in Chicago, the CLE program “The Rules Brothers (and Sisters): A Chicago-Style Review of Basic Legal Ethics Rules of Professional Conduct That Every Business Lawyer Needs” introduced ethical rules and commentary using lines from Chicago-location movies and shows. With three of the panelists wearing sunglasses reminiscent of The Blues Brothers to set the stage, the program put a fun spin on illustrating critical legal ethics issues affecting every business lawyer.
The program, moderated by Sanford (“Sandy”) P. Shatz (partner at Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP), featured helpful insights from A.J. Singleton (general counsel and member of Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC), Amy Richardson (shareholder at Maynard Nexsen PC and senior lecturing fellow at Duke University), Shawn Garrett (founding attorney of Garrett, PLLC), and Ashley Stasak (associate attorney at Marshall Dennehey, P.C.).
Competency
The program started with a famous line from Home Alone (“You’re what the French call ‘les incompétents’”) to stress that under ABA Model Rule 1.1, “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” As Stasak put it, “This is not a ‘fake it until you make it’ situation.” If a lawyer is not familiar with a subject area, they are obligated to learn the subject area before providing representation in it. Lawyers need to be honest with themselves about their level of competency. Singleton added that once a lawyer promises a client what can be done, it is hard to back away from it. To avoid getting into such a difficult situation, honesty about level of competency is the key.
Connecting the duty of competence to a hot-button issue, Stasak highlighted two levels of competency in connection with the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”): competency in using the AI tool and competency in evaluating the AI-generated content. Shatz and Richardson used real cases to warn the audience of the consequences that can result from unguarded use of AI and citation of fake cases “hallucinated” by generative AI.
Organization as Client
When representing an entity, a lawyer is the steward of the organization itself as a client, according to ABA Model Rule 1.13. With quotes from Eight Men Out and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, the discussion explored the aspects of the rule that guide what a lawyer for an organization must do when they know a person associated with the organization is violating a legal obligation to the organization, or violating a law in a way that is likely to injure the organization. Richardson summed up ABA Model Rule 1.13(b) as the obligation of “reporting up” and ABA Model Rule 1.13(c) as the permissive option of “reporting out.” According to Singleton, seeking attorney representation may help shield such difficult communications with attorney-client privilege.
Richardson additionally noted that sometimes a state may have special rules on who an organizational client is when a lawyer is representing the government.
Dealing with Entity Clients and Their Employees
Relatedly, when representing an entity, the entity’s employees are not a lawyer’s clients unless there are allowable joint representations with all necessary conflict waivers. This should not catch the entity’s constituents off guard. The panel noted this with Clark Griswold’s famous line in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation: “Surprised, Eddie? If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn’t be more surprised than I am right now.” Garrett led the discussion of ABA Model Rule 1.13(f), which requires a lawyer to explain the identity of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the organization’s interests are adverse to those of the constituents with whom the lawyer is dealing, and the interwoven ethics rules under ABA Model Rule 1.13(g) (which allows a lawyer’s dual representation of both an organization and its constituents) and ABA Model Rule 1.7 (which sets forth the prerequisites for a lawyer to represent a client when a concurrent conflict of interest exists). Garrett shared Singleton’s insights in Singleton’s 2021 co-authored article on how to identify the client in the case of an unformed entity. Singleton emphasized that there are only one or two states that allow a client to be a not-yet-formed entity relying on their respective specific versions of Rule 1.13.
Garrett explained that when a lawyer’s client is an entity, the attorney-client privilege rests with the entity client, rather than the entity’s constituents. The panel also discussed the complexities in tripartite representation—with Stasak using the example of her day job to illustrate tripartite representation involving insurance carrier, policyholder, and attorney.
Attorney-Client Privilege
The program discussed several complex aspects of attorney-client privilege. “The absolute attorney-client privilege protects client’s request for legal advice and their lawyer’s response; it does not necessarily protect the fact,” Shatz noted. Richardson added that, once a client has shared confidential information about a case with ChatGPT, it is hard to maintain attorney-client privilege retroactively later on. Stasak echoed that the shared information is discoverable—as Richardson and Singleton said, “That’s a waiver.” Shatz also reminded the audience that “reply all” in email communications can jeopardize attorney-client privilege.
Confidentiality
The confidentiality obligation of a lawyer under ABA Model Rule 1.6 is fundamental to the legal profession. With a quote from The Untouchables (“What are you prepared to do?”), Singleton invited the audience to think about what lawyers are supposed to do to protect confidentiality as a professional obligation. The panel also discussed various scenarios under ABA Model Rule 1.6(b) where a lawyer may reveal information relating to client representation. Having client consent under ABA Model Rule 1.6(a) can be a safe harbor for revealing information. When a lawyer has to disclose client representation information when changing law firm jobs, using a confidentiality agreement (nondisclosure agreement) can help better protect clients’ confidential information, Singleton said. Singleton further added that, even when a lawyer has to comply with a court order to disclose confidential information, a lawyer still needs to take measures to limit the ways and amount of information to be disclosed—for example, by asking the court whether the disclosure can be done in the judge’s chambers—even when doing so would be to the lawyer’s own disadvantage.
A lawyer’s confidential obligation continues for former clients under ABA Model Rule 1.9. But while Model Rule 1.9 permits using information relating to a former client when it has become generally known, ABA Model Rule 1.6 does not have Model Rule 1.9’s “generally known” exception for current clients. As Singleton put it, “just because something is generally known about your current client” it doesn’t mean you can disclose it.
The program ended with discussions from Singleton and Richardson about candor toward the tribunal under ABA Model Rule 3.3, which is an exception to Model Rule 1.6.
Conclusion
The audience were still sitting in the Chicago meeting room, digesting the familiar yet complicated legal ethics rules regarding competency, organizational clients, attorney-client privilege, and confidentiality, with panelist-presented figures and lines from familiar Chicago movies replaying one after another, when Shatz announced that the show was over.
With the ABA Business Law Section’s spring and fall meetings changing locations each year, will future CLE programs of legal ethics be presented in some other cities’ styles? In this AI era, what other AI-related ethics issues will future CLE panelists enlighten the legal industry about? Whatever the details, the ABA Business Law Section’s Professional Responsibility Committee is sure to find more engaging ways to teach about legal ethics.
