1 / 11

Chapter 5 Relationships Between Lawyers and Clients

Chapter 5 Relationships Between Lawyers and Clients. A. Formation of the “lawyer-client” (or is it “client-lawyer”?) relationship. A. Formation. Choosing clients U.K. “cab rank” rule . U.S. rejects. Free to decline for any/no reason.

evania
Download Presentation

Chapter 5 Relationships Between Lawyers and Clients

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 5 Relationships Between Lawyers and Clients A. Formation of the “lawyer-client” (or is it “client-lawyer”?) relationship

  2. A. Formation • Choosing clients • U.K. “cab rank” rule. • U.S. rejects. Free to decline for any/no reason. 1.2(b) representation not endorsementof the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.

  3. A. Formation • Choosing clients • L preferences? • only mothers or only fathers? Color of hair, eyes, demeanor • S/ no expertise; advise C of other options? (pro se, DIY, someone else is better?) • Possible consequences if get in over one’s head?

  4. Choosing C’s pp. 281-83 S/ NO prior experience in field; Tell C, bill for self-study? RPC 1.1 Cmts. 1-2 Atty. Grievance Comm. Of Md. v. Manger (Md. 2006) n. 2 p. 282 (securities L undertook divorce & custody, $25K bill! indefinite suspension) S/ New L, hung out shingle. • When is self-education feasible?

  5. 2. Offering advice as basis for C/L relationship pp. 285-93 “undertake” agree or failure to decline effectively Rstmt. §14(1), supp. p. 257 Broad concept “putative Cs” or “accidental C’s” Agency law: C is principal, L is agent Togstad: informational burden on agent as more sophisticated party to relationship

  6. Togstad vs. Veseley(MN ’80)pp. 286-93 Case w/in case: Underlying medical malpractice by Dr. Blake; 1 hour delay in treating. Medmalπ expert: Negligence of Blake & hospital direct cause of injury. Proced’l: Appeal from entry of jury verdict for plaintiffs, LM $650K Issue: did L Miller owe DUTY to Togstads? Contrast πtestimony to Δ L/Miller pp. 287-889

  7. Breach? EW required where LM negligence claim. Also a K claim? Battle of Experts pp. 289-90 1. π Green? 2. Δ-1 McNulty? 3. ***Δ-2 Hvass?

  8. Held, evidencesufficient to sustain $650K verdict. pp. 290-91 1. Duty:Mrs. T went for legal advice, reasonably believed it was given, not qualified by stating he lacked expertise and she reasonably relied upon, injury foreseeable.Mr. T also a C. 2. Breach: under circumstances (time since injury) duty to inform of applicable limitations period. 3. Actual & proximate cause: Miller was wrong, πs proved that would have recovered from Dr. & Hosp. if suit timely filed. (case w/in case) 4. Damages proven w/ sufficient certainty, recoverable from medical providers. (see damage allocation p. 290) 5. Rejected judgmental immunity defense (mere error of judgment)

  9. Takeaway: when free initial consult What is minimum a lawyer should do under these circumstances? *** N. 6, pp. 292-93 Ethics 20/20 revised 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client (a) A person who discussesconsults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a C-L relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective C. Draft “letter of non-engagement”

  10. Jones v. Barnes (1983) pp. 338-44 I: 6th Amend. Can Δinsist that appointed indigent defense Lraise on appeal every non-frivolous issuehe wants? Held, no ineffective assistance; in criminal appeal L has authority to exercise professional judgment on best legal arguments; and filed C’s pro se briefs, complied w/ Anders. N.B. Re Constitutional standard, NOT ethical. Indigent C’s often mistrust their L’s.

  11. D. Who calls the shots1. Competent adult C : 1.2(a) + 1.4 C: objectives of representation, after required consultation w/ L so C can make informed consent (IC) per 1.0(e), 1.4 supp. pp. 12-16 L: means by which objectives to be pursued List, 2d sent. RPC 1.2(a) Distinctions between 1) transactional; 2) civil litig.; criminal defense. “Collaborative joint venture model”

More Related