Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
I was approached by a candidate for election to challenge an opponent's nominating petition. A political supporter will be the actual challenger since one needs someone registered in that political party in that election district to file a challenge. I am really representing the candidate and their party who is backing him. What are my obligations to the challenger who, I guess, is the actual client?
March 11, 2021 at 01:22 PM
8 minute read
Always remember that the client is the actual challenger, not the candidate who asked the lawyer to do the challenge.
I was approached by a candidate for election to challenge an opponent's nominating petition. A political supporter will be the actual challenger since one needs someone registered in that political party in that election district to file a challenge. I am really representing the candidate and their party who is backing him. What are my obligations to the challenger who, I guess, is the actual client?
Samuel C. Stretton.
Under the Pennsylvania Election Code 25 P.S. Section 2937, there is a time period of seven days after the deadline for filing nominating petitions to challenge the nominating petitions. The challenge to nominating petitions are supposed to be brought by the person registered to vote in the district who is registered in the same political party as the candidate being challenged.
This content has been archived.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 All
Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
The Forgotten Ballot: Expanding Voting Access for Incarcerated Populations
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
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
