About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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 nearly 3,000 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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most