Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 54
`
`REPORT OF ROBERT L. KEHR
`
`I, Robert L. Kehr, hereby declare as follows:
`1
`I have been requested by Parker Mills LLP, counsel for Stubbs Alderton &
`Markiles, LLP (for convenience, “Stubbs Alderton”), to provide in this Report my expert
`opinion on certain questions about the professional responsibilities of lawyers. This
`Report is intended for use with the Stubbs Alderton motion to be permitted to withdraw
`immediately as counsel in Case No. 18-MD-2834-BLF and related cases now pending in
`the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California (the “Withdrawal Motion” and the
`“District Court”). I have been asked to provide this Report because of my long-standing
`involvement with the professional responsibilities of lawyers, which includes chairing the
`Professional Responsibility and Conduct Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar
`Assn., chairing the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct of
`the State Bar of California, serving as a member of the State Bar Commission that drafted
`California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, and serving as an Adjunct Professor at
`Loyola Law School on topics that include lawyer conduct. The details of my
`qualifications are stated in the attached Exhibit “A,” as is required by Rule
`26(a)(2)(B)(iv). This Report states my opinions, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i). As
`required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii), and except for any assumptions that I have been asked to
`make as stated below, the materials on which I relied in forming my opinions are listed on
`Exhibit “B” to this Report. As required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v), a list of prior expert
`testimony is attached as Exhibit “C” to this Report. As required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(vi),
`attached as Exhibit “D” to this Report is my engagement agreement, which fully states the
`terms of my compensation.
`
`Introduction. I have been asked to provide my opinion on the single question of
`2
`whether Stubbs Alderton and its partners and associates have an affirmative obligation to
`
`-1-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 54
`
`terminate their District Court representation of PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`(“PersonalWeb”) under rule 1.16(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar
`of California.1 (I will refer to the Stubbs Alderton partners and associates as the
`“Individual Lawyers”).2 Rule 1.16 defines when a lawyer must terminate a representation
`(in its paragraph (a)), when a lawyer may terminate a representation (in its paragraph (b)),
`and how a lawyer goes about accomplishing the termination of a representation (in its
`paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)). My opinions address only rule 1.16(a) and its mandate that a
`lawyer “shall withdraw from the representation of a client” in certain described
`circumstances (emphasis added). It is my opinion that there are multiple reasons why
`Stubbs Alderton and the Individual Lawyers are obligated to terminate their District Court
`representation of PersonalWeb. Rule 1.16(a)(2) requires a lawyer to terminate a
`representation if “the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the representation
`will result in violation of these rules or the State Bar Act.”3 It is my opinion that rule
`1.16(a)(2) applies here in a number of ways.
`
`3
`
`The duty to obey court orders and related duties.
`3.1
`The Los Angeles County Superior Court, in Brilliant Digital Entertainment
`
`1This Expert Report is directed to Stubbs Alderton’s role in the District Court
`proceedings, but I have been advised the firm will take steps to terminate its
`representation of PersonalWeb in related appellate court proceedings as a result of the
`analysis in this Expert Report unless the firm is able to withdraw immediately in the
`District Court proceedings.
`
`2All “rule” references are to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
`California that went into effect November 1, 2018. I refer to the Individual Lawyers
`because the rules and the relevant State Bar Act provisions govern the conduct of
`individual lawyers and, as is true in California and all other U.S. jurisdictions other than
`New York and New Jersey, only individual lawyer are subject to professional discipline.
`
`3The State Bar Act is found at CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 6000, et seq., and it is §§
`6067, 6068, and 6103 that are pertinent here.
`
`-2-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3 of 54
`
`Inc, etc, et al. v. PersonalWeb, etc., et al., Case No. 21VECV00575 (the “Receivership
`Action”) on June 1, 2021 entered its Preliminary Injunction in Aid of the Receiver (the
`“Preliminary Injunction”). I have been asked to assume that the Preliminary Injunction
`remains in effect without modification. A copy of the Preliminary Injunction is attached
`as Exhibit “E” to this Expert Report for the Court’s convenience. The Preliminary
`Injunction broadly prohibits, among other things, any person from “[d]oing any act ... to
`interfere with the Receiver taking control or possession of, or managing the property
`subject to this receivership” and from interfering “with the exclusive jurisdiction of this
`Court over the property and assets of Defendant PersonalWeb.”4 I understand this to
`mean that one effect of the Preliminary Injunction is to prohibit Stubbs Alderton and the
`Individual Lawyers from representing PersonalWeb with respect to the post-judgment
`proceedings because their doing so would amount to conduct that would have the effect
`of participating in the judgment creditors’ interference with “the Receiver taking control
`... of property subject to the receivership” and their interference “with the [State court’s]
`exclusive jurisdiction” over PersonalWeb’s property.
`3.1.1 One of a lawyer’s duties is to obey all lawful court orders. This duty
`has been codified in CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103:
`A wilful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him to do or
`forbear an act connected with or in the course of his profession, which he ought in
`good faith to do or forbear, and any violation of the oath taken by him, or of his
`duties as such attorney, constitute causes for disbarment or suspension.5
`
`4Preliminary Injunction at ¶ (d), p. 5.
`
`5A lawyer’s violation of a court order also would implicate rule 8.4(a), which
`makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “violate these rules or the State Bar Act
`....” and rule 8.4(d) as conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The latter
`section is new to California but has been used elsewhere to impose discipline for
`disobeying a court order. See, e.g., People v. Roose, 69 P.3d 43 (Colo. 2003) (lawyer
`
`-3-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 4 of 54
`
`A lawyer’s failure to obey a court order has been the basis for the imposition of
`professional discipline. See, e.g., In Matter of Genis, 2015 WL 1295958 (Cal. Bar Ct.
`2015) (lawyer suspended for violating CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103, among other
`things). The California Compendium on Professional Responsibility lists some twenty-
`
`four cases under the heading of § 6103, plus multiple advisory ethics opinions.6
`3.1.2 A lawyer’s violation of CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103 also can be
`charged as a violation of the lawyer’s oath: “Every person on his admission shall take an
`oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
`California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his
`knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.” (CA
`Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067) and of the duty “To maintain the respect due to the courts of
`justice and judicial officers.” (CA. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(b)). These two statutes
`have been described as pertinent in a variety of circumstances. With respect to § 6067,
`see, e.g., Cal. State Bar Formal Op. 1979-51 (“Section 6067 of the Business and
`Professions Code provides that "[e]very person on his admission shall take an oath ...
`faithfully to discharge the duties of any [an] attorney at law to the best of his knowledge
`and ability." Failure to perform the duties of an attorney in a fashion known to the
`attorney to be expeditious and consistent with the usual practices and procedures of other
`attorneys is not performing to the "best of his knowledge and ability."); Cal. State Bar
`Formal Op. 1983-72 (referring to the duty to uphold California law); Cal. State Bar
`Formal Op. 2003-162 (referring to the duty “faithfully to discharge the duties of an
`attorney to the best of his [or her] knowledge and ability.”); and Matter of Rubin, 2021
`
`suspended from practice for leaving courtroom mid-trial in defiance of judge’s order).
`
`6Available at
`https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Publications/Compendium/Califor
`niaCompendiumonProfessionalResponsibilityIndex.pdf
`
`-4-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 5 of 54
`
`WL 1511881 (Cal. Bar Ct. 2021) (finding that a simple mistake of law does not come
`within § 6107). With respect to § 6068(b), see, e.g., Osborne v. Todd Farm Serv., 247
`Cal. App. 4th 43, 45 (2016) (“An attorney is an officer of the court. He or she must
`respect and follow court orders whether they are right or wrong.”). This means that any
`work by the Individual Lawyers on the post-judgment proceedings would require them to
`consider the potential disciplinary, civil, and reputational consequences of possible
`multiple State Bar Act violations.
`3.1.3 Rule 1.16(a) also obligates the requested withdrawal because any
`advice to PersonalWeb about the post-judgment District Court proceedings could trigger
`application of rule 1.2.1: “(a) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a
`client in conduct that the lawyer knows* is ... a violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a
`tribunal.*” Amazon’s counsel, beginning at p. 4, line 23, of the transcript of the District
`Court’s January 20, 2022 hearing, appears to argue that Stubbs Alderton has an
`affirmative obligation to “ensure their client’s compliance with the order ....” Any
`attempt by the firm to do so would raise rule 1.2.1 issues because of the Preliminary
`Injunction but, even without regard to the Preliminary Injunction, a lawyer cannot require
`a client to act in a particular way. See rule 1.2(a): “Subject to rule 1.2.1, a lawyer shall
`abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation ....” Only the
`client has the authority to make substantive decisions. See, e.g., Blanton v. Womancare,
`Inc., 38 Cal.3d 396, 404 (1985) and Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc., 134 Cal. App. 4th
`1565 (2005).7
`3.2
`filings, or providing discovery responses or communications to opposing counsel or
`adverse parties, on behalf of PersonalWeb are the client’s act rather than their own. We
`
`It might be argued that the Individual Lawyers’ conduct in making court
`
`7The District Court acknowledged a lawyer’s inability to force its client’s contact
`at p. 10, lines 1-6 of the January 20, 2022 hearing transcript.
`
`-5-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 6 of 54
`
`don’t need to examine the merits of that argument to conclude that it would provide no
`defense to the Individual Lawyers. The reason is that, closely related to a lawyer’s duties
`to obey court orders and to act in furtherance of the proper administration of justice under
`CA Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6067, 6068(b) and 6103, the rule 8.4(a) prohibition on a
`lawyer’s violation of the rules or the State Bar Act is extended by also defining as
`professional misconduct the violation of the rules or State Bar Act “through the acts of
`another.” It is my opinion that the Individual Lawyers could not defend any charges of
`having violated these State Bar Act provisions by blaming their client and, moreover,
`their doing so would conflict would their duty of undivided loyalty to the client.8
`
`The duty of competence and obeying court orders. The immediately preceding
`4
`¶ 3 is based on the assumption that Stubbs Alderton and the Individual Lawyers will
`continue to fully perform all duties owed to PersonalWeb in the District Court
`proceedings and by doing face the risk of being charged with violations of the
`Preliminary Injunction. Their alternate course of action would be to obey the Preliminary
`Injunction and instead decline to participate in the post-judgment District Court
`proceedings although being of record in the District Court proceedings. That approach
`would have the following potential consequences:
`4.1
`The refusal to assist its client would subject Stubbs Alderton to a claim of
`malpractice for any resulting injury. In addition to the possible civil consequences for
`Stubbs Alderton, the Individual Lawyers might have to face a charge that they violated
`rule 1.1: “(a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or
`
`8It is the duty of a lawyer to exercise independent professional judgment not
`influenced by the lawyer’s own interests. See, rule 1.7, Comment [1]: “1] Loyalty and
`independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client.” and
`rule 2.1: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional
`judgment and render candid advice.’
`
`-6-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 7 of 54
`
`repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.” The duty of competence is so
`fundamental that a lawyer cannot obtain an effective advance waiver from the client. See,
`e.g., Cal. State Bar Formal Op. 1995-140 (“No matter how much disclosure is made, a
`lawyer may not represent a client when the lawyer cannot competently represent the
`client’s interests.”); Cal. State Bar Formal Op. 1993-132 (“An attorney’s duty to give
`competent representation may not be waived.”); and Developments in the Law: Conflicts
`of Interest in the Legal Profession, 95 Harv.L.Rev. 1244, 1264, 1274 n. 90 and
`accompanying text (1981). As one court put it with particular pungency: “A lawyer “may
`
`not set a shallow limit on the depth to which he will represent the [client].” Ismael v. Millington,
`241 Cal. App.2d 520, 527 (1966). A lawyer can be subjected to professional discipline
`charge under rule 1.8.8(a) by entering into a contract with the client that violates that
`standard.
`4.2
`A decision by the Stubbs Alderton and the Individual Lawyers to not violate
`the Preliminary Injunction would save them from the violations identified in ¶ 3, above,
`but would substitute parallel risks for having violated District Court orders and applicable
`federal statutes and Rules of Civil Procedure provisions.
`
`Conflicts of Interest. A lawyer has a conflict of interest when the lawyer’s
`5
`professional duties to a current or former client, the lawyer’s personal or other
`relationships, or the lawyer’s own interests make it reasonably foreseeable that the lawyer
`will not be able to fully satisfy a duty the lawyer owes to a client. This now is codified
`for disciplinary purposes in rule 1.7(b).
`(b) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each affected
`client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a significant
`risk the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the
`lawyer’s responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 8 of 54
`
`third person,* or by the lawyer’s own interests.9
`The obvious conflict here is that any effort to enforce the Preliminary Injunction in the
`State court proceedings, or to enforce post-judgment duties in the District Court
`predictably will be brought against Stubbs Alderton and its client.10 Put in that situation,
`the Individual Lawyers would have a conflict between the duties of undivided loyalty and
`independent professional judgment owed to their client and their own personal interests.
`The solution to this is for the District Court to grant the Withdrawal Motion to permit
`Stubbs Alderton to withdraw immediately as PersonalWeb’s counsel in the District Court.
`Stubbs Alderton and the Individual Lawyers would not be in the position of violating the
`Preliminary Injunction if not attorneys of record in the District Court proceedings and,
`once they no longer are counsel of record, they could not violate any duty they would
`have had in the District Court proceedings.
`
`6
`
`Other relevant professional duties and standards.
`6.1. The duties of firm managers and supervisors. Rule 5.1 imposes a set of
`duties on law firm managers and supervisors. That rule begins:
`(a) A lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses managerial
`
`9An asterisk identifies a word or phrase defined in the terminology rule, rule 1.0.1.
`As previously stated, a client cannot give consent to a breach of the duty of competence.
`See ¶ 4.1, above.
`
`10Counsel for defendants in the District Court proceedings pointed to this by
`including the following in an email to Stubbs Alderton: “Please also state what actions
`Stubbs Alderton has taken and will take to ensure that PersonalWeb complies with the
`court’s orders. Will Stubbs Alderton supervise the collection and production of records
`or will it once again leave it to the client to determine what documents are relevant and
`responsive??”
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 9 of 54
`
`authority in a law firm,*shall make reasonable* efforts to ensure that the firm* has
`in effect measures giving reasonable* assurance that all lawyers in the firm*
`comply with these rules and the State Bar Act.
`Paragraph (b) and (c) impose a similar duty on individual lawyers who supervise other
`firm lawyers, and rule 5.3 imposes parallel duties with regard to the management and
`supervision of firm paralegals and other non-lawyer personnel.11 I do not see any way in
`which Stubbs Alderton’s managing and supervising lawyers could avoid violating rules
`5.1 and 5.3 while the firm continues to represent PersonalWeb in the District Court
`proceedings. This means that firm mangers, and supervisors acting with respect to the
`District Court proceedings, would be at risk of professional discipline even if not
`themselves directly involved in that representation. This would be true whether the firm
`and Individual Lawyers were to violate the Preliminary Injunction or were to comply with
`it and instead fail to competently represent PersonalWeb in the District Court proceedings
`and as a result might be charged with having violated the Preliminary Injunction.
`6.2. Confidentiality. Amazon’s counsel argued at the District Court’s January
`20, 2022 hearing that Stubbs Alderton could provide confidential information to the court
`in camera (transcript p. 5 at lines 10-15). There is no general principle of law that would
`permit a lawyer to disclose confidential information in camera. To the contrary, the
`starting point is CA Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1) making it the duty of a lawyer “at
`every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client ....” If a lawyer
`were to offer confidential client information, such as the content of the lawyers privileged
`communications with the client, the lawyer would face violations of § 6068(e)(1), rule 1.6
`
`11Copies of both rules are attached for the court’s convenience as Exhibit “F” to
`this Expert Report.
`
`-9-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 10 of 54
`
`(duplicating the statute in the Rules of Professional Conduct),12 and the duty of undivided
`loyalty. As to the latter, see Cal. State Bar Form. Op. 1997-151 (this opinion, among
`other things, emphasizes a lawyer’s primary loyalty duty to the client when both are the
`targets of a sanction motion, and I am aware that Stubbs Alderton has been directly
`threatened with sanctions, for example in an email dated September 9, 2021 from
`Amazon’s counsel that included this: “... we intended to move to compel and for
`sanctions against PersonalWeb and Stubbs Alderton as the district court previously
`expressly authorized us to do.”).13
`6.3. Mutual Trust and Confidence. I have been asked to assume that
`PersonalWeb has not directly or indirectly communicated instructions to Stubbs Alderton
`regarding its and Stubbs Alderton’s compliance with the outstanding District Court orders
`or with discovery initiated by Amazon, including with respect to a January 28, 2022 email
`from Amazon’s counsel asking questions and seeking documents.14 This failure of
`communication on the part of the client makes it impossible for the firm to perform its
`duties and demonstrates a breakdown of the lawyer-client relationship. As stated by the
`California Supreme Court in Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal. 4th 1164, 1189
`(1994), mutual trust and confidence between lawyer and client are “those values that
`underlie the professional relationship”). See also, McDonald v. Swope, 79 F. Supp. 30,
`33 (9th Cir. 1948) (describing mutual trust and confidence as “the essential element of the
`relationship of attorney and client”) and Harris v. Superior Ct., 19 Cal. 3d 786 (1977)
`
`12Including in the rules a reference to § 6068(e) made the standard more easily
`available to lawyers without changing the standard of lawyer conduct.
`
`13Available at:
`https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Opinions/1997-151.htm
`
`14I understand that a copy of this email will be provided to the Court. This is
`among the recent developments that have materially exacerbated the professional
`responsibility dilemma.
`
`-10-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 11 of 54
`
`(issuing a writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside its appointment of counsel,
`in part based on Petitioner’s lack of trust and confidence in that counsel). It has been
`represented to me that PersonalWeb’s failure to communicate worsened following this
`Court’s June 25, 2021 Order and has materially worsened in the last several weeks.
`
`Summary. Stubbs Alderton and the Individual Lawyers cannot fulfill all of their
`7.
`duties to their client and to the courts and legal system so long as they continue to
`represent PersonalWeb in the federal court action. They necessarily are at risk of
`violating multiple professional obligations that could lead to significant professional
`discipline.15
`
`Executed at Los Angeles, CA on February 9, 2022
`
`__________________________
`Robert L. Kehr
`
`15This Expert Report is directed to the professional discipline that could follow
`from representing PersonalWeb in the District Court proceedings. I leave to others any
`discussion of the obvious danger of the state court in the receivership proceedings and/or
`the District Court exercising their powers and the risk of civil liability to PersonalWeb,
`and also the risk of civil liability to the client.
`
`-11-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 12 of 54
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`ROBERT L. KEHR - Cornell University (B.A., 1966); Columbia University (J.D.,
`
`1969); Member: California State Bar Commission for the Revision of the Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct (2005-2017); California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional
`
`Responsibility and Conduct (Member: 1996-2001, Chair, 1999-2000 and Special Advisor:
`
`2000-01); Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar
`
`Association (Member: 1981-Present and Chair: 1986-87); Evaluation of Professional
`
`Standards Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (Member: 1988 - merged
`
`into PREC); Member: American Law Institute; Member: Association of Professional
`
`Responsibility Lawyers; Adjunct Professor - Loyola Law School; Author: “A Trial Lawyer’s
`
`Guide to Rule 3.3" - California Litigation, Vol. 33, No 1; “The Troubled History of the
`
`Business Transactions Rule” - July/August 2019 issue of Los Angeles Lawyer; “The Lawyer
`
`as Director” - April 2018 Los Angeles County Bar Updates; “The Lawyer as Escrow Holder”
`
`- March 2018 Los Angeles County Bar Updates; “Lawyer Ethics in Real Estate Transactions”
`
`- ABA Probate & Property, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 2012) (with Prof. Roger Bernhardt);
`
`“The Lawyer as Scrivener” - Los Angeles Lawyer (2011), Vol. 34, No. 6, p. 20; “Midcourse
`
`Corrections: Being Professionally Responsible in Property Transactions” - 34 CEB Real
`
`Property Law Reporter 123 (July 2011) (with Prof. Roger Bernhardt); “When a
`
`Lawyer-Mediator Prepares the Settlement Agreement” - ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on
`
`Professional Conduct (2011), Vol. 27, No. 12; “Principles or Rules: What is the Best
`
`Approach to Regulation?” Los Angeles Daily Journal, August 12 and August 13, 2010;
`
`“Lawyer Error: Malpractice, Fiduciary Breach, or Disciplinable Offense?” - 29
`
`W.St.U.L.Rev. 235 (2002); “Update on Conflicts of Interest” - Los Angeles Lawyer (2000),
`
`Vol. 23, No. 4 p. 33; “Ruling on the Rules” - Los Angeles Lawyer (1998), Vol. 21 No. 4 p.
`
`37; Peck & Kehr, “Ruling on the Rules” - Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 37 Los Angeles Lawyer (1998);
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`--1122--
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 13 of 54
`
`“The Changing Law of Lease Assignments” - Real Estate Review, Vol. 11 No. 2 p. 54,
`
`(1981); “Lease Assignments: The Landlord's Consent” - 55 California State Bar Journal 108
`
`(1980); “The Application of Green v. Superior Court to Non-Residential Realty” - 1 Los
`
`Angeles Lawyer 30 (1979). Arbitrator: Los Angeles County Bar Attorneys Fee Arbitration
`
`Committee, (1980-Present).
`
`Currently practice limited to transactional matters and consultation and expert
`
`testimony concerning legal ethics and standard of care issues. Frequent lecturer on lawyer
`
`responsibilities.
`
`Robert L. Kehr was a speaker or one of the panelists at the following programs:
`
`1.
`
`“Disclosure Pitfalls for Lawyers: Partners, Brokers, and Other Fiduciaries in
`
`Real Estate Transactions.” This program was given under the auspices of the Real Estate
`
`Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association on May 18, 1995.
`
`2.
`
`“Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Ethical Issues in Lateral Transfers and Law Firm
`
`Dissolutions.” This program was given under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Bar
`
`Association Committee on Professional Responsibility and Ethics on June 22, 1995.
`
`3.
`
`“Engagement, Disengagement, and Non-Engagement Letters.” This program
`
`was given under the auspices of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California as
`
`part of the annual spring program on June 23, 1995.
`
`4.
`
`“Managing Civil Conflicts of Interest In and Out of Court.” This program was
`
`given under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Bar Association on October 21, 1995.
`
`5.
`
`“Conflicts of Interest.” This program was sponsored by the California
`
`Continuing Education for the Bar on January 23, 1997.
`
`6.
`
`“The Application of Advertising & Solicitation Rules to the Internet”. This
`
`program was sponsored by the Law Firm of Jackson & Lewis on March 18, 1997.
`
`7.
`
`“Recognizing and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest.” This program was
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`--1133--
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 14 of 54
`
`presented to the Los Angeles Consumer Lawyers Association on July 10, 1997.
`
`8.
`
`“Recent Developments in Legal Ethics.” This program was presented to the
`
`California State Bar at its September 13, 1997 annual meeting.
`
`9.
`
`“Ethics Issues in Buying and Selling Businesses.” This program was presented
`
`by CLE International as part of a 2-day program on December 4, 1997.
`
`10.
`
`“Conflicts: Traps and Consequences for Lawyer and Insurers.” This program
`
`was presented by the Assoc. of So. Cal. Defense Counsel on February 5, 1998
`
`11.
`
`“Legal Ethics in Land Use Matters”. This program was presented by CLE
`
`International on April 30, 1998.
`
`12.
`
`“Recent Developments in Professional Responsibility.” This program was
`
`presented to the California State Bar at its October 1-4, 1998 annual meeting.
`
`13.
`
`“What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Conflicts of Interest.” This
`
`program was presented to the California State Bar at its October 1-4, 1998 annual meeting.
`
`14.
`
`“Ethics Issues in Buying and Selling Businesses.” This program was presented
`
`by CLE International as part of a 2-day program on February 26, 1999.
`
`15.
`
`“Methods for Identifying and Avoiding Conflicts.” This program was
`
`presented to the California State Bar at its October 2, 1999 annual meeting.
`
`16.
`
`“Conflicts of Interest.” This program was presented to the Sonoma County Bar
`
`Association on November 30, 1999.
`
`17.
`
`“Ethics Issues in Cutting Edge Fee Arrangements.” This program was
`
`presented at the Beverly Hills Bar Association on April 29, 2000.
`
`18.
`
`“The Ethics of Taking Stock for Services.” This program was presented at the
`
`Annual Statewide Ethics Symposium on June 17, 2000, at Western States University School
`
`of Law.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`--1144--
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 15 of 54
`
`19.
`
`“Methods for Identifying and Avoiding Conflicts.” This program was
`
`presented to the California State Bar at its September 2000 annual meeting.
`
`20.
`
`“Conflicts of Interest: An In-Depth Analysis for Corporate and Private
`
`Counsel.” This program was presented by PLI on December 14, 2000 (Los Angeles) and
`
`January 12, 2001 (San Francisco).
`
`21.
`
`“Navigating the Ethical Maze of Elder Law, Estate Planning and Fiduciary
`
`Conflicts: Practical Strategies both to Serve our Clients and Avoid Malpractice” which was
`
`presented to the Beverly Hills Bar Association on May 30, 2001.
`
`22.
`
`“Non-Consensual Ethics Screening for Private Lawyers” which was presented
`
`at the Annual Statewide Ethics Symposium on June 16, 2001, at Western States University
`
`School of Law.
`
`23.
`
`“A Review of Fees, Fee Agreements, Fee Collections, Unconscionability, and
`
`Non-Standard Fee Arrangements” which was presented to the State Bar of California at its
`
`September 8, 2001 annual meeting.
`
`24.
`
`“The Going Rate: Entertainment Economics by the Numbers” [legal ethics
`
`aspects] which was presented at the USC/Beverly Hills Bar Association 47th Annual
`
`Entertainment Law Institute on September 15, 2001.
`
`25.
`
`“Recognizing and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest” which was presented by CEB
`
`on November 7 (San Diego), November 17 (Costa Mesa), and December 8, 2001 (Los
`
`Angeles).
`
`26.
`
`“Conflicts of Interest: An In-Depth Analysis for Corporate and Private
`
`Counsel” which was presented by PLI on December 14, 2001 (San Francisco) and
`
`January 11, 2002 (Los Angeles).
`
`27.
`
`“Legal Ethics 2002-2003 - Current Developments” which was presented by PLI
`
`(Los Angeles) on January 10, 2003.
`
`--1155--
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 728-1 Filed 02/10/22 Page 16 of 54
`
`28.
`
`“The Role and Responsibility of Lawyers” which was presented at Pepperdine
`
`Law School, MDR program on January 21, 2003.
`
`29.
`
`“Ethics” which was presented at the 15th Annual Educational Conference of
`
`the California Alliance of Paralegal Association program on June 21, 2003.
`
`30.
`
`“Advanced Problems in Conflicts of Interest” which was presented at the
`
`Annual Statewide Ethics Symposium on June 28, 2003, at Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa.
`
`31.
`
`“Buying & Selling a Business” which was presented by Sterling Education
`
`Services on November 14, 2003 in Pasadena.
`
`32.
`
`“Legal Ethics - Current Developments” which was presented by PLI on
`
`January 9, 2004, in Los Angeles.
`
`33.
`
`“The Essentials of Legal Ethics: The Lawyers' Responsibilities and Conflicts
`
`of Interest” which was presented by CLE International in Los Angeles o