Protecting Against Unexpected Conflicts of Interest
Some attorneys are ignorant of the risks that can be created outside the traditional attorney-client relationship.
July 06, 2017 at 06:33 PM
7 minute read
Lawyers are often asked for free legal advice. It happens at parties, at the grocery store, via email and on online forums. The inquiries come from friends and family, as well as outright strangers, but they are all potential clients. Few attorneys stop to think that each piece of legal advice casually given out presents a potential conflict of interest for his or her firm. Most internal conflict check procedures do not address or protect firms from the risks that arise out of these informal and unexpected attorney-client relationships.
Some attorneys are ignorant of the risks that can be created outside the traditional attorney-client relationship. Indeed, sometimes conflict of interest claims come from unexpected circumstances, not from situations where an attorney skirted the rules or attempted to avoid the clear application of the conflicts rules. Providing casual advice or creating attorney-client relationships outside the bounds of proper documentation can create conflicts issues. Below are the three most common circumstances from which unexpected conflicts issues materialize.
Unexpected Attorney-Client Relationships
The best practices for managing a law practice involves clearly articulated file opening procedures that include both client intake procedures and the resolution of potential conflicts of interests. The most effective practice procedures begin with one important step: properly identifying the client.
Contrary to popular belief, not every attorney-client relationship begins with a prospective client who walks in the door and asks an attorney for legal services. Instead, sometimes attorney-client relationships are implied from the facts and circumstances surrounding a pattern of communication between an attorney and someone else.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLaw Firms Are In a Strong Spot, But Their Continued 'Growth Mindset' Comes With Challenges
5 minute readFormer CEO Allowed to Proceed with Discrimination Suit Against Commercial Litigation Funder, Judge Rules
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1SoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
- 2When Dealing With Child Abuse Cases, Attorneys Need to Know How Children Perceive Time
- 3Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 4HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 5Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250