Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New York Real Estate Law ReporterKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

John Gaal's Ethics Corner

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
October 01, 2003

Q: In my practice, I regularly represent unions. Recently, in preparing a grievant for an arbitration, it became apparent that a conflict existed between the interests of the grievant and those of the union on a central point of the case. Can I continue with this case?

A: As a starting point, it is necessary to determine who your client is: the union, the grievant, or both. If you only represent the union, then you can proceed. Similarly, if (as is probably not the case) you only represent the grievant, you can proceed (making sure, of course, that you are proceeding in his or her best interests and not those of the union). However, if you represent both the grievant and the union with respect to this matter, then you have a conflict of interest that likely precludes you from continuing with the representation, unless after full disclosure both clients consent to continued representation (whether on a continuing, joint basis or on behalf of just one of them). Remember, however, that some conflicts are so direct and adverse that no amount of disclosure and consent can effectively waive them, and you might be precluded from continuing with the representation on any basis, despite the clients' desires.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.