Call Us 866.940.1101 ☰ ˟
866.940.1101
Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Employee Directory
    • Partners Page
    • Event Calendar
    • Refer a Friend
  • Get A Quote
  • Products
    • Lawyers Malpractice Insurance
    • Professional Liability Coverage For Attorneys
    • Accountants Professional Liability
    • Dentist Malpractice Insurance
    • Business Owners Policy
    • Cyber Liability Insurance
    • Workers Compensation Insurance
    • Title Agents E&O Insurance
    • Paralegal Malpractice Insurance
  • Testimonials
  • Common Terms
    • Common Terms
    • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Areas We Serve
    • Grand Rapids, MI
    • Detroit, MI
    • Lansing, MI
    • Kalamazoo, MI
Home > Blog > Attorney Malpractice—Attorneys representing clients cannot act like Presidential Politicians
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2016

Attorney Malpractice—Attorneys representing clients cannot act like Presidential Politicians

While is seems like our presidential candidates can state virtually anything to win the election.  Attorneys representing clients are held to a higher standard.  This issue was addressed by the California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility & Conduct for a hypothetical case.

Statement of Fact

Plaintiff is injured in an automobile accident and retains Attorney to sue the other driver (Defendant). As a result of the accident, Plaintiff incurs $50,000 in medical expenses and Plaintiff tells Attorney she is no longer able to work. Prior to the accident Plaintiff was earning $50,000 per year.

 Attorney files a lawsuit on Plaintiff’s behalf. Prior to any discovery, the parties agree to participate in a court-sponsored settlement conference that will be presided over by a local attorney volunteer. Leading up to and during the settlement conference, the following occurs:

1. In the settlement conference brief submitted on Plaintiff’s behalf, Attorney asserts that he will have no difficulty proving that Defendant was texting while driving immediately prior to the accident. In that brief, Attorney references the existence of an eyewitness to the accident, asserts that the eyewitness’s account is undisputed, asserts that the eyewitness specifically saw Defendant texting while driving immediately prior the accident, and asserts that the eyewitness’s credibility is excellent. In fact, Attorney has been unable to locate any eyewitness to the accident.

2. While the settlement officer is talking privately with Attorney and Plaintiff, he asks Attorney and Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s wage loss claim. Attorney tells the settlement officer that Plaintiff wasearning $75,000 per year, which is $25,000 more than Client was actually earning; Attorney is aware that the settlement officer will convey this figure to Defendant, which he does.

 

According to ABA Formal Opinion No. 06-439:

Under Model Rule 4.1, in the context of a negotiation, including a caucused mediation, a lawyer representing a client may not make a false statement of material fact to a third person.  However, statements regarding a party’s negotiating goals or its willingness to compromise, as well as statements that can fairly be characterized as negotiation “puffing,” ordinarily are not considered “false statements of material fact” within the meaning of the Model Rules.5

Specific Examples of Hypotheticals and Response:

Example Number 1: Attorney’s misrepresentations about the existence of a favorable eyewitness and the substance of his expected testimony.

Thus, Attorney’s misrepresentations regarding the existence of a favorable eyewitness constitute improper false statements and are not ethically permissible. This is consistent with Business and Professions Code section 6128(a), supra, and Business and Professions Code section 6106, supra, which make any act involving deceit, moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption a cause for disbarment or suspension.

Example Number 2: Attorney’s inaccurate representations to the settlement officer which Attorney intended be conveyed to Defendant and Defendant’s lawyer regarding Plaintiff’s wage loss claim.

Attorney’s statement that Plaintiff was earning $75,000 per year, when Plaintiff was actually earning $50,000, is an intentional misstatement of a fact. Attorney is not expressing his opinion, but rather is stating a fact that is likely to be material to the negotiations, and upon which he knows the other side may rely, particularly in the context of these settlement discussions, which are taking place prior to discovery. As with Example Number 1, above, Attorney’s statement constitutes an improper false statement and is not permissible.

 

Analysis

So while these statements might be okay in today’s presidential election, they are not permitted by the rules of professional conduct.

 

For a complete reading of The State Bar Of California Standing Committee On Professional Responsibility And Conduct Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0007 click on:

Entire Opinion
Posted 1:38 PM

Tags: attorney malpractice insurance, lawyers professional liability insurance, attorney ethics
Share |


No Comments


Post a Comment
Required
Required (Not Displayed)
Required


All comments are moderated and stripped of HTML.

NOTICE: This blog and website are made available by the publisher for educational and informational purposes only. It is not be used as a substitute for competent insurance, legal, or tax advice from a licensed professional in your state. By using this blog site you understand that there is no broker client relationship between you and the blog and website publisher.
Blog Archive
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2013
  • 2011

  • lawyers professional liability insurance(429)
  • attorney malpractice insurance(383)
  • attorney malpractice(337)
  • legal malpractice(223)
  • legal liability(134)
  • cyber insurance(102)
  • data breach(92)
  • ethics(87)
  • erp(57)
  • malpractice insurance(54)
  • claims(39)
  • title agency e&o(36)
  • accountant e&o(34)
  • extended reporting period endorsement(30)
  • tail(29)
  • phishing(25)
  • legal malpractice insurance(21)
  • claims made coverage(21)
  • extended reporting period(21)
  • prior acts(21)
  • cyber security(19)
  • cyber liability(18)
  • accountant errors & omissions(18)
  • claims reporting(17)
  • crime insurance(16)
  • ransomware(16)
  • claim prevention(16)
  • attorney protective cle(14)
  • the hartford weekly newsletter(14)
  • attorney protective cle webinar(14)
  • 2022 mcgowan pro cpe webinar for accountants(13)
  • mcgowan webinar series for cpas 2021(12)
  • professional liability insurance(12)
  • retirement tail(12)
  • business owners insurance(11)
  • legal liability insurance(11)
  • fee suits(10)
  • full prior acts(10)
  • attpro tip of the month(10)
  • accountant errors & omissions insurance(10)
  • non-practicing erp(9)
  • bop(9)
  • cyber liability insurance(9)
  • title agent errors & omissions(9)
  • cyber crime(9)
  • claims made(9)
  • prior acts date(8)
  • webinar(8)
  • step rating(8)
  • lawyers(8)

View Mobile Version
Logo
Quick Links
Home Our Products Customer Service Payment Options Common Terms
About Us Refer A Friend Our Carriers Blog Contact Us
Location
2430 Camelot Ct SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546

Local: 616.940.1101
Toll Free: 866.940.1101
Email: info@L2ins.com
Facebook Twitter Social LinkedIn
© Copyright. All rights reserved.
Powered by Insurance Website Builder