Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Classifieds

Advertise

VIP Lawyer Network

EB-5

High Net Worth

Custom Content

Dubai Events

Find HNW People

Custom Events

Custom Services

Professional Services

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE




ilw.com VIP


The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-2014
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: More Isn't Always Better: Representing Opposite Interests by Ed Poll

    More Isn't Always Better: Representing Opposite Interests

    by Ed Poll

    The question often arises concerning whether lawyers can effectively and ethically represent opposite types of clients for example, insurance carriers and insurance coverage plaintiffs.

    American Bar Association Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 says, on one hand, that a lawyer cannot serve two parties that are directly adverse in the same matter; it also bars representation "when there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."

    Yet Rule 1.7 also states that a lawyer may represent clients whose interests are opposite if the lawyer is "able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client."

    Because that stipulation opens the door to representing opposite types of clients, the consideration for the attorney becomes a practical one.

    In the analogy above, would an insurance carrier get upset if it knew that its coverage defense lawyer was also representing plaintiffs in coverage matters against other carriers? If so, the plaintiffs' business may not be worth it.

    However, a plaintiffs' attorney might find substantial advantages to undertaking defense work. Such work could even out cash flow and keep the lawyer from being dependent on one type of client.

    The example at Heller Ehrman, which failed several years ago, is instructive. The firm primarily handled litigation defense, and when a number of large cases suddenly settled, there was no new business in the pipeline to replace it.

    There is also the consideration of whether certain types of work in opposition will create financial problems for the firm. Plaintiffs' cases are often taken on a contingency basis, for example, while defense work is typically done at an hourly rate.

    Corporate defense firms that enter into contingency arrangements have found that they face increased problems from their use. Some of these problems crop up while the contingency matter is open and there must be compensation for lawyers who bring no money into the firm, and, in fact, are responsible for cash outflow in the form of their compensation and expenses advanced to sustain the lawsuit.

    If the firm is successful and the contingency money flows in, conflicts can arise over who gets what. How much should the lawyers working on the matter receive? Isn't the matter the "property" of the firm? Didn't the firm, not the lawyers, advance the costs? What is fair?

    Such issues show that any decision to take on clients from opposing perspectives should be carefully considered. Firms that consider all business to be good business without regard to thinking through the consequences might find that taking fees from opposing sides creates more problems than it's worth.

    A better alternative is to diversify firm practice to encompass several different but somehow related areas of emphasis.

    A personal injury lawyer, whether serving plaintiffs or insurers, might consider diversifying into such areas as construction law or representing architects or realtors in professional services disputes. The techniques of discovery and trial advocacy would be the same, the firm's business base would be diversified, and conflicts of interest would not be a problem.

    For the issue is not just about more business it's getting the right business as a better foundation for firm profitability.

    2012 Edward Poll & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.


    About The Author

    Ed Poll principal of LawBiz Management Company, is a nationally recognized coach, law firm management consultant, and author who has coached and consulted with lawyers and law firms in strategic planning, profitability analysis, and practice development. Mr. Poll has practiced law on all sides of the table for 25 years-- as a corporate general counsel, government prosecutor, sole practitioner, partner, and law firm chief operating officer and been a consultant to small and large law firms for 20 years.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
    Comments 1 Comment
    1. dizzcfrancesa2475's Avatar
      dizzcfrancesa2475 -
      Hey, my name's Matt, I'm 16, I'm from the UK and I was looking for an online community with people that shared similar interests to me. This site looks to be the perfect place

      Nice to meet you all.

      -Matt

    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: