I have made a living (well not actually a living since no one
compensates me in any form of currency, whether crypto or
otherwise, for my writings here) writing about problematic ethics
opinions. July 11, 2019 brings what might be the most practically
useless ethics opinion ever released. If it were only just
practically useless, then it might not be worth writing about. But
it adds into the mix the fact that it appears, without discussion,
to significantly expand the scope of the rule being interpreted as
well.
It comes from the New York City Bar, and it addresses
cryptocurrency. Well, that's not fair exactly. Nebraska opinion
17-03 which
I wrote about almost two years ago can be described as an
ethics opinion that addresses cryptocurrency. This opinion from the
New York City Bar addresses a highly speculative question related
to cryptocurrency. It asks "what if...a lawyer entered into an
agreement with a client that would require the client to pay the
lawyer in
