From jazz at qnet.com Tue Apr 13 01:26:23 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:26:23 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] TV Lawyers Message-ID: <201004130627.o3D6RlUl004865@mail.zarquon.net> A quasi-ethical problem was presented on a TV show recently, and I don't quite get the fundamental problem. The basic case is a Bernie Madoff situation. An investment fund disappears, lots of people are pissed off. There is a federal investigation, but that doesn't seem to figure into this. The investors are suing to recover whatever they can. The firm that takes up the case has two principals. One of them was also invested in the fund. he does not disclose this to his partner or the clients (the pool of investors). At some point the information comes out (the Madoff guy figures it out). The judge asks about it, the attorney admits to being a former investor. He has a brief talk with his partner, then withdraws from the case. Actually he quits the firm. What I don't get is why he had to leave. I can see he probably should have disclosed he was an investor. But how does that make him unable to continue to act as an attorney in the case? Being an investor doesn't make him more privileged to information, it doesn't change his responsibility as an attorney, and it doesn't change his duty to the other investors (other than not having disclosed). Why should he have to go? Bill From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Wed Apr 14 00:26:33 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:26:33 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] TV Lawyers In-Reply-To: <201004130627.o3D6RlUl004865@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201004130627.o3D6RlUl004865@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor wrote: >What I don't get is why he had to leave. I can see he probably >should have disclosed he was an investor. But how does that make him >unable to continue to act as an attorney in the case? Being an >investor doesn't make him more privileged to information, it doesn't >change his responsibility as an attorney, and it doesn't change his >duty to the other investors (other than not having disclosed). Why >should he have to go? I would say that it is because he has a direct interest in the outcome of the case which he did not disclose to his clients. His interest might conflict with theirs, depending on how the settlement could be structured. He might, therefore, have a personal incentive to favor some clients at the expense of others. If he had disclosed his personal interest, and the clients were OK with it, that would be fine. But he concealed it. Boom. Fatal ethics violation. Rich "IANAL" Rostrom -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From steveg at swhi.net Wed Apr 14 21:28:37 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:28:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] TV Lawyers In-Reply-To: References: <201004130627.o3D6RlUl004865@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <36881.63.255.27.2.1271298517.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Rich Rostrom wrote: > I would say that it is because he has a direct interest in > the outcome of the case which he did not disclose to his > clients. > > His interest might conflict with theirs, depending on how > the settlement could be structured. Right. I'm traveling and have been too busy to respond to much, but that's it. Even aside from making choices for personal reasons between otherwise permissible reasons, as Rich suggests, he might even be more than usually subject to pressures to sell them out completely. That's especially true in a class action, where otherwise his share would be comparable to everyone else's. This is covered by Rule 1.7 of the standard (ABA) rules of professional conduct. - Steve G From embates at yahoo.com Tue Apr 27 11:27:35 2010 From: embates at yahoo.com (Eric Bates) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] AZ Law Message-ID: <59945.30878.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I'm curious, have any of our resident legal experts read the law? If so, what do you think? http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf Eric M. Bates CCIE #6560 Lake Orion, MI 48359 http://ebgraphics.imagekind.com http://www.mypltb.com http://www.ebgraphics.net From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Apr 28 18:48:38 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] AZ Law In-Reply-To: <59945.30878.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <59945.30878.qm@web110708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Eric Bates says: > I'm curious, have any of our resident legal experts read the > law? Not yet; I've been really busy. But I am interested, and now I guess I'll have to. Thanks for the link. - Steve G