|
Corporation and Its Lawyers Assessed
Attorney’s Fees for Asserting Frivolous Claims: U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado
A corporation brought a patent infringement suit that
it should have known lacked merit.
Even though the corporation survived a summary judgment motion and
won a jury verdict (which was later overturned), the district court
assessed fees. Significant
factors for the court were that the corporation’s lawyers repeatedly
misled the jury, exploited the complexity of the issues, and otherwise
engaged in tactics that amounted to “an abuse of
advocacy.” Medtronic
Navigation v. Brainlab,
98-cv-01072-RPM (February 12, 2008).
Lawyers Cannot Participate in Networking Clubs That
Mandate Cross-Referrals: Massachusetts
Committee on Professional Ethics
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported that the Bar Committee
issued an opinion proscribing lawyer participation in any networking club
that requires its members to refer work to each other. Membership in such a club violates Massachusetts
Professional Conduct Rule 7.3, which, except in limited instances, forbids
lawyers from giving anything of value in exchange for a referral. Networking clubs that require
cross-referrals involve just that because the lawyer members must gives
referrals in exchange for referrals.
Several lawyers criticized the opinion for being vague and broad, saying
it will discourage lawyers from participating in legitimate networking
opportunities. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (March 21, 2008).
Lawyer That Prepared Will Naming Himself as
Beneficiary Suspended For Thirty Days:
Maine
Board of Overseers
A lawyer began a personal relationship with an elderly
client, assisting in her routine care.
At her request, he prepared a will that included himself as a
beneficiary. After she died, he
eventually refunded the bequest.
While the lawyer’s conduct violated the per se rule against drafting an instrument that directly
benefits the lawyer, the Board found that the lawyer “went above and
beyond the call of duty in ministering to a troubled and infirm elderly
woman.” Taking the
lawyer’s “noble” and “selfless” motivations
into account, the Board only suspended him for thirty days. Board of Overseers v. Clark, BAR-07-02 (January 24, 2008).
When Lawyer Becomes a Potential Witness, His
Associate Might Still Be Able to Represent Client: Maine Bar Counsel
The Bar Counsel issued an informal opinion in response
to a lawyer’s question about whether he could represent a client
before an administrative agency after a complaint was brought against both
the lawyer and the client. Maine
Professional Conduct Rule 3.4 dictates that, when a lawyer is a likely
witness on the merits, he must withdraw from representation unless his
distinct value to that particular case would make his withdrawal an undue
hardship on the client. A
member of his firm, however, can represent the client as long as that
lawyer does not have a conflict of interest, and the original lawyer is
sealed from participation.
For more information on thESE topicS, and prior
issues of Professional Liability Update, visit the ‘Articles’
topic on our website at: http://www.nkms.com
To remove your name from the mailing list, send
an email to pwilson@nkms.com with ‘remove’ in the subject
line. To add a name to the
mailing list, please send an email to pwilson@nkms.com
with ‘add’ in the
subject line.
The contents of this message are intended for
general information purposes only, and should not be considered legal
advice or a legal opinion.
Anyone seeking specific legal advice should consult an
attorney. The Supreme Judicial
Court of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts
indicates this may constitute advertising.
|