So, 12 hours ago, this was my view:
I was standing on the pier in Hermosa Beach. I’d just biked to Santa Monica and back, and was about to take a final swim before heading to LAX.
In lawyer ethics terms, one might argue that my subsequent decision to board the flight adversely reflects on my fitness. Evidence supporting that argument? A simple compare and contrast:
At least Tuesday looks good. Hal Miller, I bet you’re jealous!
- This is an open book quiz.
- You should try it!
- Email answers to firstname.lastname@example.org
- Encourage colleagues to do the same.
You represent co-plaintiffs in a civil suit. The defense proposes an aggregate settlement of your clients’ claims. By rule, you shall not participate in the settlement unless each client:
- a. Gives informed consent
- b. Gives informed consent, confirmed in writing
- c. Is given a reasonable opportunity to seek independent legal advice
- d. A&C
True or False? The rule on aggregate settlements applies only in civil cases. In criminal cases, a lawyer may not participate in an aggregate agreement as to guilty or nolo pleas.
By rule, what is it that a lawyer may not do with an unrepresented former client, unless the former client is given written notice of the desirability of seeking independent legal advice, and a reasonable opportunity to do so?
Lawyer called me to ask if I thought he had a conflict of interest that prohibited Lawyer from representing Wife in a post-judgment child support dispute with Husband. Lawyer explained why he was asking. I responded by telling Lawyer that it turned on whether his prior particapation in the matter was “personal and substantial.” If so, I added, he’d need both Wife AND Husband’s informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Under these facts, Lawyer’s prior participation in the matter was most likely as:
- A. a fact witness in the couple’s contested divorce hearing
- B. the mediator when the couple attempted to mediate the divorce
- C. Husband’s attorney in a criminal case that Wife argues warrants a modification of the child support order
- D. a GAL for the couple’s son in the divorce
Lawrence Mattingly practiced law in Illinois. Once, while negotiating with the federal government on behalf of a client, Mattingly gave the government a letter in which he conceded that his client had, in fact, earned income over the previous 4 years. The “Mattingly Letter” was admitted at trial as evidence against the client.
With this weekend in mind, who was the client?