Thus, a lawyer related to another lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each client gives informed consent.
Full Answer
Answer (1 of 6): 1. How do I ask the lawyer to prove that he/she is actually hired by the counter-party to present them. If you are an attorney yourself, you don't. If s/he tells you that, and the person really is an attorney, you can take him or her at his or her word. If, later on, it turns o...
On the lawyer’s certificate, check for a particular agency that provided the certification. For example, there may be a state agency that grants certification or accreditation for mediation services or other types of practice areas. Contact the agency directly and provide as much information as you have about the attorney to check on this status.
For those companies who have second thoughts about common practice; Charterama offers independent stand-alone Charterers Liability Insurance for Charterers of vessels who don’t want their lawyer to represent their counter party too. Please contact your underwriter for any further information about Charterama and/or our product portfolio.
First, indicate clearly that you are interested in obtaining legal representation for yourself. I get a lot of inquiries from legal referral services. Some use phrases like “Are you accepting new clients?” or “I’m looking for an attorney who practices personal injury law.” They make it sound like they want to hire a lawyer but they do not.
To determine whether the lawyer is a graduate from an accredited law school, contact the law school directly and ask the school representative whether the school was accredited at the time that the lawyer received his or her juris doctor degree.
While lawyers may focus in particular areas, state ethic rules regarding professional conduct generally prohibit lawyers from advertising that they are “certified” or that they “specialize” in particular areas unless they receive such certification from a particular agency, such as the state bar. If you would like to ensure ...
Each state has a bar association that regulates the practice of law . Accreditation may be provided to certain attorneys of the state by that state’s bar association. For other types of accreditation, approval from the state bar association may be required even if the bar association itself does not provide for the specific type of accreditation.
Like the Better Business Bureaus, attorneys might provide information about their license, certifications and accreditations to the chamber of commerce. Check your local chamber for this information. Some communities have search tools to use on their websites to make this process easier.
If the accreditation is from another entity, conduct an online search for that particular type of accreditation to see if there is an authority that can provide you with more information on the accreditation.
If the attorney does not represent the client, which I would ask to be confirmed in writing, then you have no obligation to provide any information regarding a case. In some situations, (such as if YOU were an attorney yourself), it would be an ethical violation for you to say anything.
However, your situation sounds a little suspicious. If your company is involved in law suit with an individual, your company's attorney should be talking with the individual's attorney. Neither you nor the individual should be talking to anyone but your own attorneys.
Communications between an attorney and the attorney's client are confidential unless the client waives the privilege. There are, however, many exceptions. Since you did not mention having any exceptional legal relationship to the client or the client's attorney, the answer most likely is no. Report Abuse.
In the instance you describe, however, the attorney is not required to inform you of the identity of his client.
There is no requirement that an attorney disclose who his client is, under most circumstances. You are right, it is very unusual for an attorney to call and not disclose who his client is. However, it can occur. However, you are under no obligation to answer any questions either.
You are not obligated to provide "inside information" to any person who contacts you, attorney or not, unless it is in the context of a lawsuit and you are ordered to do so. If you feel this person is taking liberties, then you should retain an attorney to protect you. Report Abuse. Report Abuse.
An attorney does not have to disclose anything to you. what makes you think so who, other than Obama goes around forcing people to do things they don't care to do?
However, an attorney who is a pro se litigant is also the attorney representing themselves, and it can be argued that pursuant to Model Rule 4.2, the attorney is ethically prohibited from speaking with an adverse party represented by counsel without “consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.”.
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
The well-known old saying often credited to Abraham Lincoln states that “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”. This article will not comment on the advisability of representing yourself in litigation, but will instead discuss the ethical issues that arise when an attorney is either a pro se litigant (representing him or herself) ...
In this situation, the attorney is not acting as both counsel and client, but is rather is only a client who has retained representation. PBA Opinion 2017-200 found that when an attorney is represented by counsel, Rule 4.2 does not apply, reasoning that Rule 4.2 only applies when an attorney is acting in the role of representing a client ...
It does not apply to lawyers simply because they are lawyers.”. [7] (We note that this seems somewhat at odds with the notion of protecting people from an attorney’s specialized skills). Other jurisdictions have found that Rule 4.2 applies to a lawyer at all times, because they are a lawyer.
In determining that Rule 4.2 is an identity rule, these jurisdictions found that the legal system benefited from a policy preventing attorneys from using their specialized legal knowledge and skills to influence an adversary, even when both sides were represented by counsel.
In conclusion, Rule 4.2 (or an analogous rule) likely restricts an attorney who is a pro se litigant from contacting or conversing with an adverse party represented by counsel about the subject matter of a pending litigation.
Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required for communication with a former constituent. If a constituent of the organization is represented in the matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this Rule. Compare Rule 3.4 (f).
When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter, a government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to honoring the constitutional rights of the accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this Rule. ...
See Rule 1.0 (f). Thus, the lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.
A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4 (a). Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make.
A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4 (a). Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make. Also, a lawyer having independent justification ...
Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make. Also, a lawyer having independent justification or legal authorization for communicating with a represented person is permitted to do so.
A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances to authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule, for example, where communication with a person represented by counsel is necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury.
Thus, a lawyer related to another lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each client gives informed consent.
[21] A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer's representation at any time. Whether revoking consent to the client's own representation precludes the lawyer from continuing to represent other clients depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the conflict, whether the client revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the reasonable expectations of the other client and whether material detriment to the other clients or the lawyer would result.
On the other hand, simultaneous representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing economic enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest and thus may not require consent of the respective clients.
[8] Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests. For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer's ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the others. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.
For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer's ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the others.
The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.
Personal Interest Conflicts. [10] The lawyer's own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client. For example, if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.
Attorney Conflicts of Interest: Exceptions. There are times when an attorney may be able to represent a client despite an apparent conflict of interest, although the rules on this can vary by state. For example, a lawyer may be able to accept an individual as their client if:
While an attorney may be able to easily identify a conflict, sometimes they're not always easy to spot. Because of this, it's the attorney's responsibility to perform regular conflict checks when taking on a new client.
There are a variety of conflicts of interest that can prevent a lawyer from taking on a particular case. The conflict may occur between the prospective client and one of the attorney's current or former clients. There can also be concerns if a client's interests are in conflict with the lawyer's professional or personal relationships.
The lawyer believes they can provide " competent and diligent " representation to all affected clients; The representation isn't illegal in any way; The lawyer isn't representing two clients against each other in the same lawsuit; and. Each affected client provides informed consent in writing.
It's also important to note that a law firm may be able to represent a client even though a single attorney had a conflict of interest, if a "firewall" can be successfully put around the attorney with the conflict. This essentially means that the matter would not be discussed with or around the attorney with the conflict, ...
If so, it's a good idea to get in touch with a skilled attorney near you. An attorney can not only answer any questions you may have about the scope of an attorney's obligations to their client, they can also answer other questions you may have about the law.
It's also possible for there to be an issue if the potential client's interests are at odds with the attorney's own interests. A conflict of interest can also occur at the law firm level. For example, even if an attorney working at a law firm didn't personally work on a particular matter (because someone else at the firm handled it), ...
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
If no one can confirm that the story is true, you will at least need something external, such as a hard copy document, to prove your case. Be prepared.
If the judge can see your boobs, he's not listening to your story. If I can see your boobs, then I know you didn't care enough about yourself to talk to an attorney. Dress like you are going to church. Credibility is one of the most important things in this world - and most important in a courtroom.
If you care enough only to wear sweats to the courthouse, then the judge will see that you don't care, and that will be reflected in their desire to help you, listen to you, and decide in your favor. Step it up. Your case depends on it.