Law firms that want to include mandatory arbitration provisions in their client engagement agreements must explain to the client the benefits and disadvantages of arbitrating a prospective dispute, the New Jersey state supreme court held late last year — and merely providing a link to the arbitration rules doesn’t satisfy the requirement, the court said.
Wife not liable for husband’s alleged malpractice; no partnership-by-estoppel, Third Circuit holds
If you and your spouse are both lawyers, you know that you potentially face a few unique ethics issues — conflicts and confidentiality are the most obvious ones. (We’ve considered some of the ins and outs No DQ for firm in California homeless rights case, says district court
“DQ” at this time of year makes me think of drive-in ice-cream cones. But I actually mean “DQ” as in “disqualification,” and instead of sugar cones, it points to an interesting case involving some take-home lessons about conflicts of interest.
Crisis of unhoused residents
California’s massive homelessness problem has been the subject of several federal
Client can be asked to indemnify lawyer against third-party claims, says ethics opinion
You probably know about the ethics rule that prohibits lawyers from trying to prospectively limit their liability to clients (or at least I hope you do!). You can find it in your state’s version of Model Rule 1.8(h).
In an interesting twist, the Utah Ethics Advisory Committee recently opined that it’s permissible to include
Documenting who you do — and don’t — represent is key to avoiding malpractice trap
We’ve blogged about this before, but if you need any more reasons to be sure that you document who your client is and is not, see the Oregon court of appeals opinion in Lahn v. Vaisbort.
“I represent only your brother”
In Lahn, the lawyer had represented the plaintiff, her brother and
Want to be “local counsel”? Understand who your client is and define your duties
If you only agree to be “local counsel” in a matter, you can rest assured that your limited undertaking also limits the scope of your duties — right? Wrong — as a recent disciplinary case and recent ethics opinion point out.
No “local counsel exception” to conduct rules
If your law school friend is serving
Limited-scope engagement letter helps lawyer avoid discipline
Rule 1.2(c) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits lawyers to enter into limited-scope engagements, in which you can agree with the client that you will be providing only certain designated legal services, and not the full scope of services that might ordinarily be expected in an engagement of that sort. The rule is
Engagement letter can limit scope of services — or not
Everyone wants to avoid disputes with clients, and a good way to do that is with an engagement letter that lays out the agreed scope of your legal services. Disagreements over the intended parameters of the representation can be ugly — and they can land you in disciplinary trouble or lead to a malpractice claim.