a_bloke posted:
Which would never happen. in what scenario would my clients transgressions have anything to do with his payment or lack thereof?
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.
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?
Upholding your client's confidentiality is part of your job. You would then forced to break the confidence as an example of how you have done your job. Otherwise it would be your word against his. I just gave you a scenario the perfect scenario that demonstrates this
Its a catch 22 I know but lawyers have to be allowed to break confidences sometimes to get what they are due in payments. Else like the article said, lawyers would require payment up front in case someone didnt like the outcome of the case and decided just not to pay. -----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
A: A whore that likes attention