About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through April 2018)

handle is hein.ali/rettlglyrs0055 and id is 1 raw text is: THE LAw GOVERNING LAWYERS 3D Generally S.D.N.Y.2017. Cit. generally in disc. After mutual association that provided protection-and-indemnity insurance to its members denied member's claim for losses arising from a shipping incident, and association's board upheld the denial of coverage, member sued association, seeking de novo review of the board's decision. This court granted summary judgment for association, holding that the board's decision was subject to a deferential standard of review and could not be vacated on the ground that it violated public policy. The court rejected member's argument that the award endorsed a violation of the Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers, which required counsel to be independent and unconflicted when paid by a third party to represent a client, reasoning that the Restatement was not the kind of authority that could, in principle, support a public-policy vacatur under the New York Court of Appeals' articulation of the standard. TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc., 253 F.Supp.3d 725, 733. Pa.Cmwlth.2017. Cit. generally in sup. In a derivative action filed by members of the boards of trustees of nonprofit corporations against other members, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of certain information from defendants, including legal opinions and advice that would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. While vacating and remanding for further proceedings, this court affirmed the trial court's ruling that plaintiffs were entitled to assert the good cause exception to the attorney-client privilege under Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 85, noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had previously consulted the Restatement when dealing with the contours of the attorney-client privilege. Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, 161 A.3d 394, 407. CHAPTER 1. REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION TOPIC 5. LAW-FIRM STRUCTURE AND OPERATION TITLE B. LIMITATIONS ON NONLAWYER INVOLVEMENT IN A LAW FIRM § 10. Limitations on Nonlawyer Involvement in a Law Firm Mass.2017. Com. (b) cit. in disc. In disciplinary proceedings, attorney was charged with violating multiple rules of professional conduct in connection with his solicitation and handling of a substantial number of mortgage-loan modification cases over more than a four-year period. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that attorney be disbarred. This court affirmed, holding, among other things, that the trial court did not err in finding that attorney violated the limitations on fee sharing by paying nonlawyers for referring clients to him and encouraging them to solicit clients for a fee. The court noted that, under Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 10, the limitations on fee sharing were intended to For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most