In the most recent Professional Responsibility Column, "A Fresh Look at Advance Waivers," July 1, 2013, we reviewed prior articles in this column dealing with that topic in the context of an important new case from Texas, Galderma Laboratories v. Actavis Mid Atlantic, 2013 WL 655053 (N.D.Tex.), which significantly advanced the circumstances in which law firms might expect to be able to enforce advance waivers included in their engagement letters. Now there is a New York case, Macy's v. J.C. Penney, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4798; 2013 NY Slip Op 4891 (June 27, 2013), which takes an even more robust view of the effectiveness of advance waivers, even against a client's subsequently expressed change of mind.
In addition to considering Macy's v. J.C. Penney, this column notes the changes recently adopted by the four Appellate Divisions to the text of the Statement of Clients' Rights which must be posted in all law offices pursuant to Rule 1210 of the Court Rules.
'Macy's v. J.C. Penney'
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
