Monday, April 30, 2012

THE ELEVEN COMMANDMENTS OF LAWYER ETHICS






Michael Sean Quinn, Ph.D, J.D., C.P.C.U., Etc.
2630 Exposition Blvd  #115
Austin, Texas 78703
(o) 512-296-2594
(c) 512-656-9759
(Resumes found at
www.michaelseanquinn.com)


Comments:  In the last Blog, I indicated that the next Blog would be the "Commandments" over again, but this time with some comments.  Here they are.  The reader should remember that this list and to some extend the comments are intended to be simplistic but quick and helpful guides.  occasionally, I have had those at CLEs tell me that they have pined up to their walls.  Obviously, I am greatly complemented by this.  Of course, I am not suggesting that anyone really needs to do this.  Most all of this most of you will already know these.

Many of these obligations also have foundations other than fiduciary duties.  That one, however, fits lawyering, even if there are other justifications for lawyers.

I. You are the client’s fiduciary. Study its meaning. Two features: (1) Q: Whose interests come first, for example? A: Clients! = “uberrima fides.” (2) Q. How important is the client? A. Maximally!

This "commandment" is the foundation for at least nine of the other commandments

II A. Don't Steal the Client's Money

This commandment is the one that will cause disbarment more frequently than all of the others. It is also implied by Commandment X.

II B. Do not gouge the client(s)—even a little bit. 

This rule requires that a lawyer not charge the client outrageous sums. It also requires that the lawyer not pad his hourly performances higher than reality.(Of course there are fees other than hourly charges, but principle is the same.)

III.  Do not lie (with one puzzling exception, maybe).

A lawyer is forbidden to lie in connection with services rendered to a client in any way whatsoever. This means that a lawyer may not lie to his client, for his client, against his client, or about his client. (One wonders if the word "whatsoever" includes bargaining and negotiations. Many people think not.) Of course, lying a frequently a crime; it is often a breach of fiduciary duties; it is in addition a universally accepted moral obligation, at least prima facie.

IV. Perform well promptly.  (Two commandments in one.)

Performing well means doing a good job or a reasonably good job. What counts as a good job. Courts require things to be done by certain dates. Client's have needs-including intense needs- for jobs to be performed.

Sometimes, the clients don't really need scheduled performance, but they become suspicious if they don't get it. It is often difficult to know, at least some of the time, what a client really needs from a temporal point of view. If schedules are not kept, clients begin to believe that the lawyer is not trustworthy. That c

V. Serve vigorously but silently, 

Speak completely with clients, sometimes “insistently,” and argumentatively.  Do not hold your peace.  Never just tell the client what s/he wants to hear. 

Vigorous performance often means pursuing the clients interests aggressively. Often this involves insistane and/or cushing. Sometimes, that is not true. Sometimes vigorous advocacy includes protection therefore, vigor is sometimes achieved by putting things off--by delaying the dangers--or by sizzling the apparent vigor of an opponent. Sometimes deliberate ommissions, perform with client direction or consent are most fit section I.

VI. Don’t do the crime, at all, ever. Resist temptation of any sort. 

Don't do it with the client; Don't do it for the client; Don't do it against the client. This rule includes al crimes except for very minor misdemeanors, such as a paring ticket or going 72 in a 70. (80 in a 75 is a boarder line case.)


VII. Avoid unnecessary duels.  Always advise client: the unnecessary is almost always irrational 

The word "duel" here is intended to be a dramatic image of lawyer's representing two or more parties that have at least one conflict of interest. This is a bad idea quite often. It is always a bad idea unless the lawyer has the consent of all involved clients and it has been made sure that te clients understand what is at that point known to be involved. If what is involved changes over time, each client must be kept informed, and a client is really "informed" only if the client knows what is going on. Many believe independent counsel(s) must be used in order to make sure that the clients are informed. This is not absolutely necessary under all circumstances. The abilities of the clients, the talents of the lawyer, and the context in its various ways are all important. The commandment which prohibits dueling, obviously, applies to all of the professional activities of lawyers.
   

VIII. Invariably exhibit civility.
Invariably a lawyer should exhibit civility under all circumstances. It can always be part of vigor—indeed, an impressive and powerful component. Besides, lawyer honor demands it.  It costs nothing. Civility should penetrate relationships with the client, relationships with cooperating lawyers, relationships with opposing counsel, and even relationships with disorderly clients who are pigs through and through.

IX.  No dirty clashes! C-IX is true even if few actions bring more pleasure than bedeviling the devil.) Vigor not demand dirt. 

The idea of cheating here is clear enough. It includes some of the commandments already here, for example, section XXX which forbids lying. It forbids such conduct as hiding known evidence. It forbids deliberate false estimates of monetary value. The list goes on and on. Paradigm or worse example: Arrange to have opposing counsel for a crime he either did not commit or which you engineered. 


X. Get needed help.

This should be sought on a timely basis with respect to all activities all matters falling within the professional activities of lawyers. Usually, its relatively easy to obtain; its stimulating; and most lawyers enjoy teaching. It doesn't look like this section is required by section I. But if seeking the Right help from the right people makes a lawyer better for his client, isn't seeking help a fiduciary duty.   Seek more than one lawyer from whom to seek help.  Look or the extraordinarily knowledgeable.  Then again, look at your law school friends who have specialized.  For example, specialists in banking and/or bankruptcy, trust and/or antitrust, and so forth. 

XI.  Embrace, receive, respond, and provide appropriate help.

There is nobility to be found here.  There is no direct relationship to fiduciary duties.  It is everyones self interest over time.  It's like pro bono activity.  It's a duty of respect for the legal system; its altruism;  and--I think--it's a duty of  most philosophical system (except that of Ayn Rand) and virtually all religions.  In the end, there may be a connection to fiduciary duties:  Guess how.  Moreover, there is a subtlity. Rendering help to other lawyers--even mentorship--is good for business and a way for you to learn more or learn deeper. 


Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Lawyers v. Insurers


Michael Sean Quinn, Ph.D, J.D., C.P.C.U., Etc.
1300 West Lynn #208
Austin, Texas 78703
(o) 512-296-2594
(c) 512-656-9759
(Resumes found at
www.michaelseanquinn.com)


Duty to Defend Insurance Coverage for the Unquestionably Unusual

Shore Chan Bragalone Depumpo LLP, etc. [Shore Chan] v. Greenwich Insurance Company [GIC] 3:11-CV-0891 (N.D. Tex. 4/11/2012).

The Shore Chan (SC) firm had a business arrangement with one Steven Thasher to pay him a percentage of cases that he referred to it.  He claimed to have referred to him a substantial number of patent related cases, including 112 having to do with UT-Arlington.  Thasher sued SC in Texas state court alleging that SC owed it $600K arising out of this matter. 

SC demanded coverage from GIC, including a duty to defend, but it denied coverage. SC sued. The present decision pertained to coverage for a duty to defend, and--of course--the judge applied the "Eight Corners Rule," and employed only the plaintiff's amended petition in the state court case, and did so using the federal rules governing summary judgments.

The district court held that the defined terms "claims," and  "professional services," plus the undefined phrase "arises out of" applied in favor of SC, so that the insuring agreement permited coverage, and that no pleaded exclusion defeated coverage, as of now vis a vis the duty to defend.  The exclusions included those baring coverage for business exterprises unrelated to professional activities, liabilities from contracts, inentional acts, acts performed before the policy began.

The court threw out SC's bad faith claim but kept three claims under section 541 of the Texas Insurance Code and a claim under 542.  These four claims may be called the usual ones. 

For now there is at least "duty to defend" coverage potential "indemnity coverage," and possible "statutory bad faith" coverage.

Comment:  What's the bet that SC will have indemnity coverage, in the end of complete litigation?  What would one wager as to whether the statutory bad faith claims will survive?  Assuming that Judge Boyle's opinion is reasonable, will it survive its eventually trip to the 5th Circuit?  Will the outcome depend on who SC's lawyer is?  Does this case paradigmatically illustrate the lawyer saying, "No one can really tell how a case will be decided in the end."?  Quinn's Authoritative Answers. . . . 




THERE ARE A LOT OF BLOGS THAT ARE PART OF THIS COMMENTARY.  IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO KEEP IN MIND THAT SOME OF THEM ARE EXPERIMENTS IN THINKING AND SO ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE A "FINAL WORD."

*****************************************************


ALSO, IT IS CUSTOMARY, THOUGH PROBABLY UNNECESSARY,  TO ASSERT THAT NOTHING IN ANY OF THESE BLOGS IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE PART OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ANYONE.