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

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/rettlglyrs0061 and id is 1 raw text is: THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS 3D
§ 14. Formation of a Client-Lawyer Relationship
D.D.C.2020. Com. (f) quot. in sup. Buyers of a government-contracting firm under a verbal contract
sued seller, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. This court
denied buyers' motion to disqualify seller's counsel, holding that buyers failed to show that seller's
counsel also represented buyers in their individual capacity in the early stages of the parties' dispute.
The court cited Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers § 14 in noting that, while sometimes
in the absence of warning from a lawyer, a constituent of an organizational client could reasonably rely
on the lawyer's apparent willingness to provide legal services for the constituent in addition to the
organization, thus creating an implied client-lawyer relationship, the overwhelming evidence in the
record showed that seller's counsel repeatedly gave such warnings to buyers, and that there was no
indication that seller's counsel learned any private information that remained private for more than a few
days and was useful to seller in this action. Butler v. Enterprise Integration Corporation, 459 F.Supp.3d
78, 113.
Nev.2020. Com. (f) quot. in sup. In an action brought by state senators, among others, against senate
majority leader and senate secretary for allegedly illegal legislative conduct, plaintiffs filed a motion to
disqualify defense counsel on the ground that counsel, as the legislative counsel bureau legal division,
had a concurrent conflict of interest with plaintiffs, because counsel represented all members of the state
senate. The trial court denied defendants' petition for writ of mandamus. This court granted defendants'
petition, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to disqualify defense counsel, because counsel
represented the legislature and not its members, counsel's defense of defendants as to their actions
regarding the bills was ancillary to counsel's defense of the bills themselves, and plaintiffs were not
acting on behalf of the legislature when challenging the bills. The dissent argued that the majority
should have denied defendants' requested relief, because, under Restatement Third of the Law
Governing Lawyers § 14, Commentf, whether defense counsel represented members of the legislature
or only the legislature itself was a finding of fact, and the record did not indicate that the trial court
abused its broad discretion in making its factual finding that defense counsel represented plaintiffs as
well as defendants. State ex rel. Cannizzaro v. First Judicial District Court in and for County of Carson
City, 466 P.3d 529, 535.
§ 16. A Lawyer's Duties to a Client-In General
Alaska, 2020. Coins. (b) and (c) cit. in ftn. After attorney filed an ex parte motion in which he criticized
client for refusing to settle a wrongful-death action arising from his son's death and for refusing to
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
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