| Author |
Topic:
Am I crossing a line here? [Locked] |
Sgian_Dubh  Posts: 446
Registered: 2003-4-7 10:19:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
NonOffensiveName posted:
in some states, non payment is grounds for breaking the attorney/client priviledge...if any of them went through anything *ahem* sensitive information that they dont want leaked out, they might be more inclined to pay up if they are capable 
Or file blackmail charges against the firm if it went that route...
-----signature-----
"  ou'll rue the day you crossed me Trebek!"
|
NonOffensiveName  Title: Touching people in special places all day long
Posts: 830
Registered: 2001-10-7 19:39:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
Sgian_Dubh posted:
NonOffensiveName posted:
in some states, non payment is grounds for breaking the attorney/client priviledge...if any of them went through anything *ahem* sensitive information that they dont want leaked out, they might be more inclined to pay up if they are capable
Or file blackmail charges against the firm if it went that route...
Its not blackmail to inform a client that their personal information will become public record should they have to be taken to court over a non payment issue. Im guessing most people dont even know that that is grounds for breaking confidence in the first place
-----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
NonOffensiveName posted:
Im guessing most people dont even know that that is grounds for breaking confidence in the first place
That's because it's not true (at least in the way you described).
True, an attorney can terminate the relationship upon non payment, but all information garnered prior to that termination is still protected.
|
NonOffensiveName Title: Touching people in special places all day long
Posts: 830
Registered: 2001-10-7 19:39:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
a_bloke posted:
NonOffensiveName posted:
Im guessing most people dont even know that that is grounds for breaking confidence in the first place
That's because it's not true (at least in the way you described). True, an attorney can terminate the relationship upon non payment, but all information garnered prior to that termination is still protected.
nope if you take a client or former client to court for lack of non payment and the issue of the case become relevant then you can break attorney/client protection. It does vary from state to state like I said but I know at least in CA its very explicit in the attorney ethics rules that you can do this.
-----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
NonOffensiveName posted:
nope if you take a client or former client to court for lack of non payment and the issue of the case become relevant then you can break attorney/client protection. It does vary from state to state like I said but I know at least in CA its very explicit in the attorney ethics rules that you can do this.
Incorrect.
Monday I tell you i killed somebody.
Tuesday I stop paying you (you notify me that you are no longer my attorney)
Wednesday I tell you i double parked outside
The discussion on Monday is still protected under attorney client privilege. the conversation on wednesday is not.
|
NonOffensiveName Title: Touching people in special places all day long
Posts: 830
Registered: 2001-10-7 19:39:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
a_bloke posted:
NonOffensiveName posted:
nope if you take a client or former client to court for lack of non payment and the issue of the case become relevant then you can break attorney/client protection. It does vary from state to state like I said but I know at least in CA its very explicit in the attorney ethics rules that you can do this.
Incorrect. Monday I tell you i killed somebody. Tuesday I stop paying you (you notify me that you are no longer my attorney) Wednesday I tell you i double parked outside The discussion on Monday is still protected under attorney client privilege. the conversation on wednesday is not.
I know wikipedia is not the best source for reference but its the best I could find on short notice. If you want to research more into it then be my guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_confidentiality
The relevant part: Disclosure ostensibly to support lawyer's own interests</h3>Lawyers may disclose confidential information relating to the retainer where they are reasonably seeking to collect payment for services rendered. This is justified on policy grounds. If lawyers were unable to disclose such information, many would undertake legal work only where payment is made in advance. This would arguably adversely affect the public's access to justice.Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness - a lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be unable to defend themselves against such actions.
-----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
NonOffensiveName posted:
The relevant part:Disclosure ostensibly to support lawyer's own interests</h3>Lawyers may disclose confidential information relating to the retainer where they are reasonably seeking to collect payment for services rendered. This is justified on policy grounds. If lawyers were unable to disclose such information, many would undertake legal work only where payment is made in advance. This would arguably adversely affect the public's access to justice.Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness - a lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be unable to defend themselves against such actions.
Nothing you posted states that a lawyer can disclose facts of a case which could be used against the client.
|
NonOffensiveName Title: Touching people in special places all day long
Posts: 830
Registered: 2001-10-7 19:39:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
a_bloke posted:
NonOffensiveName posted:
The relevant part:Disclosure ostensibly to support lawyer's own interestsLawyers may disclose confidential information relating to the retainer where they are reasonably seeking to collect payment for services rendered. This is justified on policy grounds. If lawyers were unable to disclose such information, many would undertake legal work only where payment is made in advance. This would arguably adversely affect the public's access to justice.Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness - a lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be unable to defend themselves against such actions.
Nothing you posted states that a lawyer can disclose facts of a case which could be used against the client.
They can disclose facts of a case if they are in a dispute over non payment. If they took the client to court if the facts of the case(the one the lawyer was hired to render services for) are relevant to the latter proceedings then the facts would be on public record. If the client doesnt want information about what happened in the trial to be on the public record they would either have to pay the bill or advocate for the judge to seal the record of the secondary trial. For example, if you hire a divorce lawyer and he handles your divorce but you decide he didnt do a good enough job so you decide not to pay him. Anything you've told him he can use in a lawsuit against you to claim the money he is owed(like for example if you told your attorney that you cheated on your spouse) to prove that he did his job accurately and to the letter of the law. If you as the client dont want that information known to the public then youd either have to pay the lawyer his fees or petition the judge to seal the record of the proceedings of the lawsuit the lawyer is bringing against you.
-----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
|
JD_HOGG  Posts: 2,846
Registered: 2008-3-18 08:04:21
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
|
Post "Bitch u owe us money" on her wall. I bet that's legal to do.
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Am I crossing a line here? |
NonOffensiveName posted:
If they took the client to court if the facts of the case(the one the lawyer was hired to render services for) are relevant to the latter proceedings then the facts would be on public record.
Which would never happen.
in what scenario would my clients transgressions have anything to do with his payment or lack thereof?
|
|
