I work for an organization whose clients are participants in an employee benefit plan providing personal legal services.
The benefits are available to the participants (the employees) AND their spouses and dependents.
Dependents usually include children until they reach age 23 or 25 or thereabout, depending on their "student" status and their status under the IRS regulations as "dependents" . . .
As a result, when, I look on my computer at work, I often see that my organization has represented the adult children of participants in the employee benefit plan for which I work.
When a participant asks me to proceed in some legal action against his or her child, this raises a major RED FLAG for me, due to Rule 1.9.
As a result, I'm constantly fighting battles with my employer over my refusal to represent participant against his or her child.
This also provokes the participant.
But I hold my ground.
UNLESS I OBTAIN WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CHILD, AFTER FULL, WRITTEN DISCLOSURE OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT, I WILL NOT REPRESENT THE PARTICIPANT --- this is what I tell my employer and the participant before the participant becomes my client.
My reading of Rule 1.9 tells me that although I may go ahead and represent the parent against the child, I'd better be damned sure it's a WHOLLY DIFFERENT MATTER, unless I have full disclosure + written authority to proceed despite the potential conflict.
However, the computer data base we work with doesn't give me the details of the prior matter if the matter is over 4 or 5 years old -- they purge the data base.
Since I cannot determine in detail what the prior matter involved, there's NO WAY I can conclude it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.
I'm using this data base purging for my benefit to stay away from the precipitous edge of a conflict of interest.
I don't know how much longer I can last here . . .
I do NOT like peering over the edge of this rule.
Just this week I told my boss I value my bar credentials more than I value this job . . .
He sent the letter over his signature, as a result . . .
[what a wimp!]
The benefits are available to the participants (the employees) AND their spouses and dependents.
Dependents usually include children until they reach age 23 or 25 or thereabout, depending on their "student" status and their status under the IRS regulations as "dependents" . . .
As a result, when, I look on my computer at work, I often see that my organization has represented the adult children of participants in the employee benefit plan for which I work.
When a participant asks me to proceed in some legal action against his or her child, this raises a major RED FLAG for me, due to Rule 1.9.
As a result, I'm constantly fighting battles with my employer over my refusal to represent participant against his or her child.
This also provokes the participant.
But I hold my ground.
UNLESS I OBTAIN WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CHILD, AFTER FULL, WRITTEN DISCLOSURE OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT, I WILL NOT REPRESENT THE PARTICIPANT --- this is what I tell my employer and the participant before the participant becomes my client.
My reading of Rule 1.9 tells me that although I may go ahead and represent the parent against the child, I'd better be damned sure it's a WHOLLY DIFFERENT MATTER, unless I have full disclosure + written authority to proceed despite the potential conflict.
However, the computer data base we work with doesn't give me the details of the prior matter if the matter is over 4 or 5 years old -- they purge the data base.
Since I cannot determine in detail what the prior matter involved, there's NO WAY I can conclude it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.
I'm using this data base purging for my benefit to stay away from the precipitous edge of a conflict of interest.
I don't know how much longer I can last here . . .
I do NOT like peering over the edge of this rule.
Just this week I told my boss I value my bar credentials more than I value this job . . .
He sent the letter over his signature, as a result . . .
[what a wimp!]
posted by:
|
-
Re: conflicts, Rule 1.9
Sat, September 22, 2007 - 8:55 AMLay persons are entirely ignorant of tne rules that lawyers are bound by and worse they think that rules are for breaking.
I was GC for a little surety bond company owned by two Albanian brothers. They really and truly expected me to counsel them on how to break the law. They simply didn't understand that the insurance regulatory people might fine the, for some act but that I might have my license yanked permanently for my participation in that same act.
Telling them that I was under a mandatory non-delegable obligation to report them for any crimes they might be planning was another difficult issue.
That was my last foray into the world of being a hired lackey.
I will never again work for another person or company - ever.
-
-
Re: conflicts, Rule 1.9
Sat, September 22, 2007 - 7:53 PMthere will yet be a time when I'm working for myself again . . .
I know this in my bones . . .
until then,
I sort of LIKE taking corporate to the brink . . .
and telling Detroit . . .
I'll write and file the motion to let you practice pro hac vice, . . .
if the DUDE who tells me no conflict exists . . .
wants to come down to Georgia . . .
play the devil's fiddle . . .
and put his mouth and credentials on the line . . .
-
-
Unsu...
Re: conflicts, Rule 1.9
Sun, September 23, 2007 - 2:20 PMDuring a brief foray into being a general counsel with a privately held company, the CEO asked me to back date an important legal document.
I told him I could not be personally involved in that, that he couldn't use or involve in house counsel in the scheme. It was understood he could proceed with it on his own, if he wanted to take that risk.
He indicated he understood that I could not do that as an attorney, but a week later, my position was "eliminated."
Several other honest employees had their positions eliminated at that time.
The company went under within 12 months, due in my opinion to the poor leadership and decision making of the CEO.
I have had my own shingle ever since. I would be reluctant to be in house counsel again unless I knew the CEO and other high level people to be very honest and to have integrity.
