Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Briefs
Disclosure of Billing Information Violates Defense Counsel's Obligation to Maintain Client Confidences
In In the Matter of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Insurer Imposed Billing Rules and Procedures, 2 P.3d 806 (Mont. 2000), the petitioner law firm filed an application for declaratory relief in 1998 with the Montana Supreme Court, asking it to declare whether attorneys licensed to practice law in Montana or admitted pro hac vice could lawfully abide by an insurance company's billing and practice rules that imposed conditions on the attorneys' practice of law. Secondly, the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to declare whether the attorneys could be required to submit their bills containing detailed descriptions of the services rendered to the carrier's auditing companies without violating client confidentiality.
In addressing the issues, the court noted the existence of various Rules of Professional Conduct that guided its decision. The court took notice of R. 1.1, which provides that “a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Id. at 809. The court also pointed to R. 1.8(f), which states that:
A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
1. the client consents after consultation;
2. there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
3. information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by R. 1.6. Ibid.
The court further noted R. 2.1, which states: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.” Ibid. Lastly, the court noted R. 5.4(c), which provides: “A lawyer shall not permit any person who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.” Ibid.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.