> Suppose A and B are in a contract negotiation.  A sends B a contract.
> B sends it to his lawyer for review, and they discuss changes they
> think are necessary.   With A's lawyer being out of town, B's lawyer
> calls A directly to ask some questions to try and make sure everyone's
> on the same page before drafting the revisions.

> Has B's lawyer done anything illegal and/or unethical?

> Has B's lawyer done anything illegal and/or unethical?

> --

> Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

>> Suppose A and B are in a contract negotiation.  A sends B a contract.
>> B sends it to his lawyer for review, and they discuss changes they
>> think are necessary.   With A's lawyer being out of town, B's lawyer
>> calls A directly to ask some questions to try and make sure everyone's
>> on the same page before drafting the revisions.

>> Has B's lawyer done anything illegal and/or unethical?

>IMO...

>Not if he's unaware that A is represented by counsel (but your wording
>suggests that he is NOT unaware of that fact). Even if he is unaware,
>that's the first thing B's lawyer should ask A ("do you have legal
>counsel representing you in this matter?") . If A is represented by
>counsel, it would be unethical for B's lawyer to try to negotiate with A
>directly. If A says he is representing himself, then it's fine to
>negotiate with him directly, but B's lawyer should in that circumstance
>be careful to not do anything that could be construed as sharp practice.
>Judges tend to frown upon a lawyer who is seen to have taken advantage
>of an unrepresented party. B's lawyer should also follow up in writing
>that day (otherwise known as CYA), confirming by letter to A that A
>stated he will be acting on his own behalf.

> Still unethical?

>> On 8/2/2012 11:34 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> Suppose A and B are in a contract negotiation.  A sends B a contract.
>>> B sends it to his lawyer for review, and they discuss changes they
>>> think are necessary.   With A's lawyer being out of town, B's lawyer
>>> calls A directly to ask some questions to try and make sure everyone's
>>> on the same page before drafting the revisions.

>>> Has B's lawyer done anything illegal and/or unethical?

>> IMO...

>> Not if he's unaware that A is represented by counsel (but your wording
>> suggests that he is NOT unaware of that fact). Even if he is unaware,
>> that's the first thing B's lawyer should ask A ("do you have legal
>> counsel representing you in this matter?") . If A is represented by
>> counsel, it would be unethical for B's lawyer to try to negotiate with A
>> directly. If A says he is representing himself, then it's fine to
>> negotiate with him directly, but B's lawyer should in that circumstance
>> be careful to not do anything that could be construed as sharp practice.
>> Judges tend to frown upon a lawyer who is seen to have taken advantage
>> of an unrepresented party. B's lawyer should also follow up in writing
>> that day (otherwise known as CYA), confirming by letter to A that A
>> stated he will be acting on his own behalf.

> What if B's lawyer was just trying to save money for B by trying to
> avoid a lot of back-and-forth of contract revisions?   He called A to
> make sure that he wasn't going to put anything in his revised document
> that A might object to.

> Still unethical?

>> What if B's lawyer was just trying to save money for B by trying to
>> avoid a lot of back-and-forth of contract revisions?   He called A to
>> make sure that he wasn't going to put anything in his revised document
>> that A might object to.

>> Still unethical?

> A lawyer, trying to save money for his client? L-O-fucking-L!

>>> What if B's lawyer was just trying to save money for B by trying to
>>> avoid a lot of back-and-forth of contract revisions?   He called A to
>>> make sure that he wasn't going to put anything in his revised document
>>> that A might object to.

>>> Still unethical?

>> A lawyer, trying to save money for his client? L-O-fucking-L!

> A lawyer has a professional, ethical and legal obligation (as a fiduciary)
> to save his client money wherever it is practicable, legal, and in the
> client's best interests.

>> A lawyer has a professional, ethical and legal obligation (as a
>> fiduciary) to save his client money wherever it is practicable, legal,
>> and in the client's best interests.

> You're hilarious. Any other fairy tales you'd like to share?

>> What if B's lawyer was just trying to save money for B by trying to
>> avoid a lot of back-and-forth of contract revisions?   He called A to
>> make sure that he wasn't going to put anything in his revised document
>> that A might object to.  

>> Still unethical?

>A lawyer, trying to save money for his client? L-O-fucking-L!

>> Has B's lawyer done anything illegal and/or unethical?

>> --

>> Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

>You get what you pay for when you ask for free legal advice.

>>> On 8/2/2012 11:34 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>>> Suppose A and B are in a contract negotiation.  A sends B a contract.
>>>> B sends it to his lawyer for review, and they discuss changes they
>>>> think are necessary.   With A's lawyer being out of town, B's lawyer
>>>> calls A directly to ask some questions to try and make sure everyone's
>>>> on the same page before drafting the revisions.

>>>> Has B's lawyer done anything illegal and/or unethical?

>>> IMO...

>>> Not if he's unaware that A is represented by counsel (but your wording
>>> suggests that he is NOT unaware of that fact). Even if he is unaware,
>>> that's the first thing B's lawyer should ask A ("do you have legal
>>> counsel representing you in this matter?") . If A is represented by
>>> counsel, it would be unethical for B's lawyer to try to negotiate with A
>>> directly. If A says he is representing himself, then it's fine to
>>> negotiate with him directly, but B's lawyer should in that circumstance
>>> be careful to not do anything that could be construed as sharp practice.
>>> Judges tend to frown upon a lawyer who is seen to have taken advantage
>>> of an unrepresented party. B's lawyer should also follow up in writing
>>> that day (otherwise known as CYA), confirming by letter to A that A
>>> stated he will be acting on his own behalf.

>> What if B's lawyer was just trying to save money for B by trying to
>> avoid a lot of back-and-forth of contract revisions?   He called A to
>> make sure that he wasn't going to put anything in his revised document
>> that A might object to.

>> Still unethical?

>Yes. If you know someone has a lawyer, you deal with his lawyer, period.

>6.02 (6)  Subject to subrule (7), if a person is represented by a lawyer
>in respect of a matter, another lawyer must not, except through or with
>the consent of the person’s lawyer:
>   (a) approach, communicate or deal with the person on the matter; or
>   (b) attempt to negotiate or compromise the matter directly with the
>person.

>6.02 (7)  A lawyer who is not otherwise interested in a matter may give
>a second opinion to a person who is represented by a lawyer with respect
>to that matter.

>Commentary

>Subrule (6) applies to communications with any person, whether or not a
>party to a formal adjudicative proceeding, contract or negotiation, who
>is represented by a lawyer concerning the matter to which the
>communication relates.  A lawyer may communicate with a represented
>person concerning matters outside the representation.  This subrule does
>not prevent parties to a matter from communicating directly with each
>other. The prohibition on communications with a represented person
>applies only where the lawyer knows that the person is represented in
>the matter to be discussed.  This means that the lawyer has actual
>knowledge of the fact of the representation, but actual knowledge may be
>inferred from the circumstances.  This inference may arise when
>there is substantial reason to believe that the person with whom
>communication is sought is represented in the matter to be discussed.
>Thus, a lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of
>the other lawyer by closing his or her eyes to the obvious.
>Subrule (7) deals with circumstances in which a client may wish to
>obtain a second opinion from another lawyer.  While a lawyer should not
>hesitate to provide a second opinion, the obligation to be competent and
>to render competent services requires that the opinion be based on
>sufficient information.  In the case of a second opinion, such
>information may include facts that can be obtained only through
>consultation with the first lawyer involved.  The lawyer should advise
>the client accordingly and, if necessary, consult the first lawyer
>unless the client instructs otherwise.

> >On Aug 4 2012 2:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> >> What if B's lawyer was just trying to save money for B by trying to
> >> avoid a lot of back-and-forth of contract revisions?   He called A to
> >> make sure that he wasn't going to put anything in his revised document
> >> that A might object to.  

> >> Still unethical?

> >A lawyer, trying to save money for his client? L-O-fucking-L!

> Shows how much you know.  Not a lot.

> Turned out that the other lawyer in the transaction kept dicking
> around with things  and did all the types of things that give lawyers
> a bad name.   That, of course, took up a lot of my lawyer's time and
> ran up quite a legal bill for me.  

> So, what was the first thing my lawyer said to me in the letter that
> accompanied the bill?   Should I keep you in suspense or just come out
> and tell you?

> OK, I'll tell you:  Since the transaction ended up costing more than
> expected, I should call his office prior to making payment, so we can
> discuss a discount.   I don't know yet how much of a discount he plans
> to give me, since he was in a meeting when I called, but his assistant
> described it using the adjective, "drastic".

>> Turned out that the other lawyer in the transaction kept dicking
>> around with things  and did all the types of things that give lawyers
>> a bad name.   That, of course, took up a lot of my lawyer's time and
>> ran up quite a legal bill for me.

>So...you were frustrated by the other lawyer's perceived stonewalling,
>stalling, nitpicking or whatever, which was costing you money, so you
>asked your lawyer to try to go around him by going directly to his
>client. Your lawyer told you he can't do that, and you were just
>double-checking here? Is that what happened?

>> Shows how much you know.  Not a lot.

>> Turned out that the other lawyer in the transaction kept dicking
>> around with things  and did all the types of things that give lawyers
>> a bad name.   That, of course, took up a lot of my lawyer's time and
>> ran up quite a legal bill for me.  

>> So, what was the first thing my lawyer said to me in the letter that
>> accompanied the bill?   Should I keep you in suspense or just come out
>> and tell you?

>> OK, I'll tell you:  Since the transaction ended up costing more than
>> expected, I should call his office prior to making payment, so we can
>> discuss a discount.   I don't know yet how much of a discount he plans
>> to give me, since he was in a meeting when I called, but his assistant
>> described it using the adjective, "drastic".

>I'm sure you'll get a real bargain. Lol.

>> On 8/6/2012 2:11 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> Turned out that the other lawyer in the transaction kept dicking
>>> around with things  and did all the types of things that give lawyers
>>> a bad name.   That, of course, took up a lot of my lawyer's time and
>>> ran up quite a legal bill for me.

>> So...you were frustrated by the other lawyer's perceived stonewalling,
>> stalling, nitpicking or whatever, which was costing you money, so you
>> asked your lawyer to try to go around him by going directly to his
>> client. Your lawyer told you he can't do that, and you were just
>> double-checking here? Is that what happened?

> No, that's not what happened.   I contracted with  a law firm, and
> they assigned a newly hired associate to work with me, as we had
> agreed.   The transaction seemed relatively straightforward, and my
> lawyer's goal was to make the necessary changes and have a document
> ready to be signed - one pass, no back-and-forth.   The other party's
> lawyer was out of town, so he called the other party directly to make
> sure that he wasn't putting in anything objectionable.

> I have no idea why he wouldn't have been aware of the ethics of making
> that call, but it seemed like it should have been a no harm, no foul
> situation.  But that's when the other lawyer started dicking around,
> and they used his error in judgment as an excuse to blame him for
> every and all problems that came up.    The negotiations went really,
> really badly from that point on.

> On second thought, let me amend that statement.   The other lawyer
> started dicking around way before this guy even was in the picture.  I
> just didn't realize it until later.  The bottom line is that I ran up
> a big legal bill and the deal never got done.   But I got saved from
> signing a bad deal, and they're planning on reducing the amount I owe.

>>> On 8/6/2012 2:11 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>>> Turned out that the other lawyer in the transaction kept dicking
>>>> around with things  and did all the types of things that give lawyers
>>>> a bad name.   That, of course, took up a lot of my lawyer's time and
>>>> ran up quite a legal bill for me.

>>> So...you were frustrated by the other lawyer's perceived stonewalling,
>>> stalling, nitpicking or whatever, which was costing you money, so you
>>> asked your lawyer to try to go around him by going directly to his
>>> client. Your lawyer told you he can't do that, and you were just
>>> double-checking here? Is that what happened?

>> No, that's not what happened.   I contracted with  a law firm, and
>> they assigned a newly hired associate to work with me, as we had
>> agreed.   The transaction seemed relatively straightforward, and my
>> lawyer's goal was to make the necessary changes and have a document
>> ready to be signed - one pass, no back-and-forth.   The other party's
>> lawyer was out of town, so he called the other party directly to make
>> sure that he wasn't putting in anything objectionable.

>> I have no idea why he wouldn't have been aware of the ethics of making
>> that call, but it seemed like it should have been a no harm, no foul
>> situation.  But that's when the other lawyer started dicking around,
>> and they used his error in judgment as an excuse to blame him for
>> every and all problems that came up.    The negotiations went really,
>> really badly from that point on.

>> On second thought, let me amend that statement.   The other lawyer
>> started dicking around way before this guy even was in the picture.  I
>> just didn't realize it until later.  The bottom line is that I ran up
>> a big legal bill and the deal never got done.   But I got saved from
>> signing a bad deal, and they're planning on reducing the amount I owe.

>Oh, I see. Well, I wasn't commenting on the rules in your jurisdiction,
>with which I am unfamiliar, but I'm pretty sure they are similar in the
>vast majority of common law jurisdictions. I'm glad you got it resolved,
>and hopefully the fees will be less than you were expecting. Most
>lawyers employ a "value billing" component in their fees, meaning that
>if for some unforeseen reason the client does not end up getting value
>for his legal services dollar (which is not necessarily the same as
>losing), the lawyer will adjust his fees downward, regardless of the
>number of hours the lawyer invested in the case. I'm pretty sure that's
>somewhere in the Code of Professional Conduct too. In my view, as a
>fiduciary, a lawyer has a professional obligation to give his or her
>clients fair value for money.

>> Frankly, Bill, I'm disappointed that you assumed I had some sort of
>> sinister motive for asking the question.

>I didn't see anything sinister about it. I'm not sure what you mean by
>that. I was just trying to guess what happened based on the limited
>information I had. I based my guess on personal experience. Clients do
>sometimes ask lawyers to circumvent the other lawyer, and they don't
>always understand why it's considered unethical, especially when the
>alternative is costing them lots of money. It's a natural reaction.

>  It's almost as if you had
>> me confused for some right-winger whose moral code depends on what's
>> personally profitable for me.

>I still don't see the immoral part. You were asking the question here if
>it was unethical, so obviously you did not know...so why would it be
>immoral to ask your lawyer to try it?

>Well, frankly, I wish for your sake it would have been the way I
>imagined it, because the other lawyer is right.