Class is on the horizon.

I have an ethical evening on tap. Last time, in the never ending class session from hell, there was an obvious rising 2L gunner in the class and he made me laugh so I hard I almost cried. We were discussing the ethical obligations for billing. The professor posed a question regarding treating rich clients differently than that dirt poor ones,

Do you have an obligation to tell your clients that they are being billed differently?

My response was, as an aside, a quite fitting ‘hell no’. But that led me to wonder if I could bill both clients for the time I spent pondering this ethical dilemma. I was pretty sure that I could do that. Then I started to think about the fun shit I would buy with the increased cash flow coming in…that’s when my day dream vanquished by the aforementioned gunner.

Professor, OF COURSE the lawyer has a duty to tell his clients what they are being charged and how it differs between the wealthy and the poor

Oh boy, this child has never seen the inside of a law firm. Or experienced the business end of an invoice. Or the love of a donkey. But I digress…

All lawyers have an equal protection DUTY to treat all of their clients the same…this is a constitutional requirement that the framers set forth for all lawyers to follow.

Did he just say framers? How did the Constitution work its way into this class? Did the dormant commerce clause just rise up and frighten all of the state? Did the necessary and proper clause just mutute into a constitutional version of Wolverine? Maybe this is what my Con Law Professor meant about Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Why is this guy getting louder?

If lawyers don’t treat all of their clients by the commands of the constitution, what good are they as professionals? Lawyers must bill all clients equally for everything!

Right.