A person has the right to complain against any attorney who is involved in legal issues concerning that person. They may write a complaint letter to an attorney who is representing them or to an attorney who is working against their case. Any letter should be written in a professional tone and in formal business style.
As discussed in Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-442 (2017), not using a “cc” to the client prevents the client from inadvertent communications with opposing counsel by using the “reply all” button.
The lawyer sends one letter certified, and one letter regular mail, and if the regular mail letter is not received back then the certified mail is presumed to have been accepted. Just pick up the letter and defend whatever bad news is alleged in the letter you want to duck.
When sending a letter to an opposing counsel by mail, there is not the same concern that your client may accidentally copy their response to opposing counsel as well because that would call for an additional copy of the letter, an additional envelope, and an additional stamp.
Before you become all worked up over the letter or attempt to respond to the letter, take a deep breath and follow these steps first: The letter may assert that you are guilty of some type of wrongdoing. Determining who has sent you the letter will help you weed out whether someone is attempting to scam you.
Under your signature, type "CC" and place two to four spaces between your signature and the CC line. Now enter the names of everyone who will be CC'd on this letter.
Emailed correspondence between attorney and client is privileged. However, the client can take some actions which will waive this attorney client privilege.
Many judges caution that an employee who merely copies an in-house attorney on an email to a non-lawyer colleague does not automatically render the email privileged. Courts scrutinize the putatively privileged communication to determine whether its primary purpose was to secure or dispense legal advice.
Unless there is a prior agreement between counsel, the most conservative approach is to avoid copying or blind copying your client on email communications to opposing counsel.
They would do this regularly if they happened to use more than one client as it would allow them to see the sent email from all clients (as it's stored in the Inbox, which is accessible to all clients when using POP3). This is a reason, amongst others, to use IMAP rather than POP so as to avoid this rigmarole.
Which of the following may not be protected under the attorney-client privilege? A client who orally confesses to a crime.
Non-Privileged Records . Means documents and records, whether hard copy or electronic, which are not subject to any legal privilege preventing its discovery and/or disclosure in a legal proceeding.
An email or letter from you to a qualified lawyer (barrister or solicitor) asking for advice, and the written legal advice you receive, are examples of documents which are privileged.
If an email actually is privileged, then putting "Privileged and Confidential" in the email subject line and/or at the top of the email body is the best way to signal that you believe it is covered by privilege.
To avoid costly mistakes, use this list of tips for keeping your emails to opposing counsel bullet-proof:#1: Consider everything you put in writing to be an exhibit that will end up in front of the judge. ... #2: Don't put the opposing counsel's email address in the “To:” line until you know your email is ready to send.More items...•
In a nutshell, if opposing counsel isn't responding:Document your repeated efforts at contact, including your statement of the consequence of continued nonresponse.Wait a reasonable amount of time.To be safe, get a court order authorizing direct contact.More items...•
8 Tips for Dealing with Difficult Opposing CounselPoint out Common Ground. ... Don't be Afraid to Ask Why. ... Separate the Person from the Problem. ... Focus on your Interests. ... Don't Fall for your Assumptions. ... Take a Calculated Approach. ... Control the Conversation by Reframing. ... Pick up the Phone.
If you have received a lawyer letter, you probably need to, at least, contact a lawyer and discuss with them your situation and the contents of the message. It’s a good idea to have a competent, experienced lawyer tell you where you stand. Also, don’t expect this service to be offered pro bono.
Be reasonable. This involves taking positions that you feel others can relate to, understand, or agree with. Being reasonable also involves giving others the benefit of the doubt, when possible.
If mediation doesn’t work, they can take their case before an arbiter, and agree, in writing, to abide by whatever decision the arbiter makes in arbitration. If you have received a “lawyer letter,” consider ADR as a next step for conflict resolution.
To “communicate” information is to transmit that information, whether or not it is discussed with the party to whom it is communicated. This reasoning applies to current Rule 4-4.2 as it also uses the term “communicate.”. Similarly, if you cannot copy a represented person on a letter sent to that person’s lawyer, ...
A certain bank employee was the contact person for the bank’s lawyer on the matter. A lawyer represented a client making a claim to the foreclosed property. The lawyer sent a letter to the bank’s lawyer critical of the bank’s lawyer’s handling of the foreclosure and copied the bank contact person.
The better course of action is to separately forward the emails to the client. That way opposing counsel is not included in the list of recipients of the forwarded email and it reduces the risk that the client may disclose confidential information that may harm the client’s interests.
The Kentucky Opinion also cautions “ [t]he ‘reply all’ button presents a dangerous risk to the sending lawyer because the sender might inadvertently send an embarrassing or harmful email to unintended recipients.”. This risk can still be present if you blind copy a client on an email to opposing counsel.
Rule 4-1.6 is the ethical rule of confidentiality. The ethical duty of confidentiality is broader than attorney-privilege. As noted in the comment to the rule, Rule 4-1.6 makes all information relating to the representation of a client confidential, whatever the source of the information. The danger in copying or blind copying a client on an email ...
The client then used “reply all” instead of “reply” to send the client’s response that the court said was clearly intended only for the client’s lawyer. In that case, the court ultimately found that the information was still privileged and that opposing counsel could not use the email. But the court found it to be a close question ...
Lawyers have a duty to communicate with their clients under Rule 4-1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes keeping clients reasonably informed about the status of their matter and to explain things to the client to the extent reasonably needed to allow the client to make informed decisions.
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. ...
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.
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.
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).
See Rule 1.0 (f). Thus, the lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.
If the letter is not legitimately from a lawyer, it may be an attempt by a con artist to obtain your personal or banking information. Examine the letter and determine what is the sender accusing you of, and if the facts that they are stating, point to your culpability.
A lawyer can advise you of what your chances are if you decide to fight what you have been accused of and what your potential liabilities might be. If you recently received a letter from a lawyer, contact the office of Eric Harron for a free consultation.
Going to court puts the onus of the plaintiff to prove that you are in the wrong. Do not admit to anything that is in the letter if you are contacted by the lawyer who sent the letter. Anything that you respond with could be used against you in court.
[2] If these Rules require that a particular decision about the representation be made by the client, paragraph (a) (1) requires that the lawyer promptly consult with and secure the client's consent prior to taking action unless prior discussions with the client have resolved what action the client wants the lawyer to take. For example, a lawyer who receives from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a civil controversy or a proffered plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance unless the client has previously indicated that the proposal will be acceptable or unacceptable or has authorized the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer. See Rule 1.2 (a).
In other circumstances, such as during a trial when an immediate decision must be made, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation. In such cases the lawyer must nonetheless act reasonably to inform the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client's behalf.
[7] In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer's own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4 (c) directs compliance with such rules or orders.
A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer's own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client.
On the other hand, a lawyer ordinarily will not be expected to describe trial or negotiation strategy in detail. The guiding principle is that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for information consistent with the duty to act in the client's best interests, and the client's overall requirements as to the character ...
Hiring a lawyer after receiving a letter is an excellent option. First of all , the individual will have the guidance and information they need to begin negotiating a settlement rather than immediately preparing for court. Second, the lawyer will start identifying their objectives and lining up what evidence they’ll need to win their case. If their position is weak, they will hear about it early on and know the reasons why. If their position is strong, they will know what they need to support their case. Simply put, the party would have a practical strategy on what to do and what not to do.
In family law it is especially important to think a few steps ahead. Ignoring the letter forces the opposing party’s lawyer to do one thing – recommend that his or her client proceed to Court.
Hiring or retaining a lawyer is simply too expensive. Hiring a lawyer is expensive, but if a party is holding off on retaining one because they can’t afford the costs, there are options they should pursue.