When one lawyer represents another, the ethical propriety of their representing persons whose interests are directly adverse depends upon the effect of such representation on each lawyer's ability to represent his "third-party" client in full compliance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Even though almost all of the attorneys were involved in the case both as parties defendant and as counsel of record, nobody was representing themselves. Not only did the individual attorneys find someone else to represent them, they all hired lawyers who were affiliated with different law firms. That’s what smart lawyers do.
Nov 24, 2014 · While most lawyers would be hesitant to report another lawyer, we must remember that we may not have a choice. The best suggestion to deal with any hesitancy is perhaps to call the Law Society’s Practice Management helpline and hopefully they can provide you with some guidance on your specific situation.
Mar 21, 2016 · Two defendants can be represented by the same attorney. If there is a conflict, the conflict can sometimes be waived and sometimes not. But in the end, it is the business of the defendants and not the person suing them. In other words, whether there is a conflict is a matter for them to deal with and not your concern. I am licensed in Pennsylvania.
It provides that “a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of a representation with a party” who the lawyer “knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter” unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or the contact is …
Reporting a fellow lawyer for breaching the Rules may result in serious ramifications for that lawyer. However, not reporting misconduct could result in even more serious consequences for that lawyer’s clients if the conduct prejudices their case and legal rights.
However, when the newly amended Rules of Professional Conduct (the “ Rules ”) became effective on October 1 , 2014, I reread them in their entirety and was reminded of my mandatory duty to report misconduct. This made me think: Am I under a duty to report this type of uncivil or unprofessional behaviour to the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”)?
If the potential misconduct you witness is a result of a colleague or friend struggling with mental or emotional trouble, or drug or alcohol abuse, approaching that individual may be the best first step. You can remind them about the confidential counselling service provided by the LSUC and run by Homewood Human Solutions.
In my career I have been fortunate to work and interact with lawyers who are courteous, friendly, intelligent, civil, and formidable opponents. Most lawyers will promptly return my phone calls or emails, consent to requests for adjournments or extensions for filing defences (when appropriate), and use polite language, even in the most heated of arguments.
Contrary to the actual Rule, which according to the Practice Management Help Line seems to promote a very narrow interpretation of when there is a duty to report misconduct, the Commentary suggests a much broader duty, or at least an opportunity, for a lawyer to report any breach of the Rules as a whole. In other words, if I am aware of a lawyer who breaches her duty to conduct herself honestly and with integrity, civility, courtesy and good faith, [1] it would be appropriate for me to report such conduct. But, if I am also aware that this conduct will likely severely prejudice that lawyer’s clients, it is not only appropriate for me to report such conduct, I am obligated to do so.
Therefore, while the determination of professional misconduct is very fact and context specific, it must be more than ill-chosen words or sarcastic and nasty comments . Nevertheless, repeated personal attacks on the integrity of other lawyers, and deliberate allegations of prosecutorial wrongdoing were enough in the context of this case to make a finding of professional misconduct.
If defense of one attorney does not push liability onto the other, i.e., the joint defense is the same for both, there is no conflict of interest and they can both be defended by the same attorney. That said, only those attorneys can raise the issue. As the plaintiff you have no say in that issue...
Two defendants can be represented by the same attorney. If there is a conflict, the conflict can sometimes be waived and sometimes not. But in the end, it is the business of the defendants and not the person suing them. In other words, whether there is a conflict is a matter for them to deal with and not your concern...
The phrase “unless authorized … by the law” in Rule 4.2 does not conceal a secret key or otherwise hidden exception. NYRPC Rule 4.2. Rather, it is intended to clear the way for contacts such as lawful service of process, taking of a deposition or requesting documents, and other communications sanctioned or ordered by the court. Id. It also allows, in criminal matters, undercover operations and other such investigations. Id.
As explained in NYSBA Opinion 884 (2011), which traces the history of the language, Rule 4.2 is given a more restrictive interpretation in criminal matters than civil matters. The Committee concluded that counsel for a defendant in a robbery case could contact a non-party witness even though he knew the witness had an attorney, distinguishing the issue there from contacting a witness in civil cases. Id. In addition, the Committee reasoned that such a witness can always insist on including his/her counsel in the communication, even if the witness is contacted directly. Id. Further, the Committee explained, counsel for the witness can advise his/her client not to speak to the inquiring lawyer without concern that to do so would violate the prohibitions in New York Rules 3.4 (a) (1) and (2) and 8.4 (b) and (d) against suppressing evidence and assisting wrongdoing. Id.
The Rule applies to communications made in connection with both transactional and litigation matters. Indeed, the Rule may apply even before the matter occurs if the communication is made as to a potential matter and the lawyer knows that that the person he/she is seeking to speak to is represented in that matter by counsel. NYSBA Comm. Prof. Eth., Op. 735 (2001). See, e.g., McHugh v. Fitzgerald, 280 A.D.2d 771, 772 (NY App. Div. 3d Dept. 2001) (“commencement of the litigation is not the criteria for determining whether communication with an adverse party is in derogation of the cited rule”); United States v. Jamail, 707 F.2d 638, 646 (2d Cir. 1983) (the prohibition applies to criminal investigations prior the actual commencement of a proceeding). But, as discussed further below, bar opinions and case law sometimes differentiate between civil and criminal cases and give greater latitude to investigations of possible criminal conduct. NYSBA Comm. Prof. Eth., Op. 884 (2011). See e.g., Gidatex v. Campaniella Imports Ltd., 82 F. Supp. 2d 119, 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Lawyers sometimes want to contact a person who is connected with an adverse party or formerly connected with an adverse party in a transaction or litigation. It may surprise you to learn that, while you generally cannot do that, you sometimes can. To avoid problems and complaints you need to understand the rules and the limits and spirit ...
Also, as explained above, counsel may unwittingly have created her own attorney-client relationship with the person involved, with all the attendant duties and responsibilities that entails. Even without that, counsel may have assumed unwanted duties of non-disclosure.
It is not legal, it is a serious conflict of interest.
The question is not one of legality, but ethics. It is not ethical for two attorneys in the same firm to represent opposing parties without the written consent of both parties to waive the obvious conflict of interest. I would suggest you find yourself another attorney.
represent you competently, zealously, and within the bounds of the law. keep conversations with you confidential, except in specific and rare occasions. communicate with you in a timely and effective manner. keep you informed of developments in your case.
If your lawyer violates these rules, he or she can be disciplined or even face a legal malpractice suit.
If you signed a retainer agreement when your hired your lawyer, it may include specific duties that you owe your lawyer. Because the retainer agreement is a contract, you are legally bound by its terms. In general, clients have the following duties: 1 Be truthful with your lawyer. 2 Cooperate with your lawyer and respond to requests for information in a timely manner. 3 Attend meetings and legal proceedings, such as a deposition or mediation. 4 Be courteous to your lawyer and his or her team. 5 Don’t ask your lawyer to do anything illegal or unethical. 6 Pay your legal bills in a timely manner.
Each state has its own ethical rules for lawyers, called the rules of professional conduct. When lawyers fail to live up to this code of conduct, the state disciplinary board can take action against them—from a simple warning to disbarment (losing the license to practice law forever).
Be courteous to your lawyer and his or her team. Don’t ask your lawyer to do anything illegal or unethical. Pay your legal bills in a timely manner. These duties are often implied as part of the attorney-client relationship, even if you didn’t expressly agree to them in a retainer agreement.
When you seek advice from an attorney about a legal matter, your private communications with your lawyer are protected by the attorney-client privilege. This means that your lawyer cannot reveal any information that you disclose to him or her in confidence, unless you give your express permission.
return your money or property upon request, including your client file. If your lawyer’s actions were also illegal, he or she can be criminally prosecuted. And, if your lawyer caused you to lose your case or otherwise suffer a financial loss, you can sue for legal malpractice.
In the legal field, however, one of the legal duties every lawyer must observe is to avoid conflicts of interest when it comes to their clients. In fact, if a lawyer represents a client knowing that there's a conflict of interest, they can be disciplined by the state bar and sued by the client for legal malpractice.
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.
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.
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 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, ...
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), ...
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.
The most important thing a lawyer does is counsel the client and provide him/her with dispassionate, realistic advice. Generally speaking, individual clients tend to come in two varieties: the unrealistic client who thinks their case is flawless and doesn't want to hear bad news, and the worrying client who obsesses, often unnecessarily, over everything that could go wrong. This divide still applies to lawyers: even though lawyers are trained to be rational and dispassionate in dealing with clients, when it's your own case, those rules often go out the window. This is understandable: how can you be rational and objective when it's your life/freedom/property on the line? Therefore, with serious matters, even lawyers are better off having someone to (1) give them a pep talk when they're worrying over things that don't really matter or (2) have a "come to Jesus" conversation when they're being unrealistic.
Think about it: Representing yourself means that you’re both client and attorney. You wear two hats and take on both positions simultaneously. Even for the most capable practitioner, that, in itself, can be a challenging dual-role to carry out appropriately.
Simply put, real estate agents help you buy a house. The best ones eat, sleep and breathe real estate for a living—meaning, they’re in it every single day. Buying a piece of property that’s worth hundreds of thousands of dollars is a huge task! That’s why most people work with a professio.
However, other than in small claims court, a lawyer could have the option of going pro se or hiring counse to defend themselves in a suit. While most lawyers know the old saying “a person who represents themself has a fool for a client”, not all of them feel it applies to them.
yes, but not a good idea for the client or the lawyer. it’s been said that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
While a lawyer can represent himself, I think it’s usually a very bad idea, especially in criminal cases. While the lawyer may have the necessary skills, as a defendant she does not have the objectivity. One of the things a lawyer does is objectively and unemotionally evaluate the evidence.
A lawyer is not required to get someone to defend them if they are sure. In fact, if they are sued in small claims court in most states (maybe all I do not know every state’s rules on the matter), the lawyer would have to appear in person and not through an attorney.
A lawyer must immediately terminate communication with a person if, after commencing communication, the lawyer learns that the person is one with whom communication is not permitted by this rule. [9] This rule does not apply to the situation in which a lawyer contacts employees of an organization for the purpose of obtaining information generally ...
The “authorized by law” proviso to Rule 4.2 (a) is intended to permit government conduct that is valid under this law. The proviso is not intended to freeze any particular substantive law, but is meant to accommodate substantive law as it may develop over time.
(a) During the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person or is authorized by law or a court order to do so.
If an agent or employee of the organization with authority to make binding decisions regarding the representation is represented in the matter by separate counsel, the consent by that agent’s or employee’s counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this rule. [4] The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from communicating ...
In making such contact, however, the lawyer may not seek to obtain information that is otherwise protected. [7] This rule also does not preclude communication with a represented person who is seeking advice from a lawyer who is not otherwise representing a client in the matter.
In addition, a lawyer is not prohibited from ad vising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make, provided that the client communication is not solely for the purpose of evading restrictions imposed on the lawyer by this rule.
If individual in-house counsel is represented separately from the organization, however, consent of that individual’s personal counsel is required before communicating with that individual in-house counsel. [6] Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required where a lawyer seeks to communicate with a former constituent of an organization.