OT: Question for lawyers

[Pepe 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?

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[BillB]

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.

[da pickle]

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

[Pepe Papon]

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?

[ChrisRobin]

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!

[BillB]

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

From the BC Code of Professional Conduct:

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.

[BillB]

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.

[Travel A]

Poupon, just pay your fricken bills, and stop scrounging for free
advice, you cheap prick.

[Clave]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:mh4Tr.24109$Yf7....@newsfe16.iad...

LOL -- gotta add that to the list. Also,

The check is in the mail.

This won't hurt a bit.

I won't come in your mouth.

I was just going to call you.

Of course I'll respect you in the morning.

Now we're even.

I'll never get this drunk again.

[ChrisRobin]

On Aug 4 2012 3:35 AM, BillB wrote:

> 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?

[BillB]

You mean like Cheney bringing down the Twin Towers? Inflation at 10%?
Stuff like that? Fairy tales and hackneyed cliches seem to be your stock
in trade.

[ChrisRobin]

On Aug 4 2012 2:53 PM, BillB wrote:

> You mean like Cheney bringing down the Twin Towers? Inflation at 10%?
> Stuff like that? Fairy tales and hackneyed cliches seem to be your stock
> in trade.

I don't think you understand what a hackneyed cliche is � which surprises
me, given how well you've got the douchey lawyer bit down.

[Pepe Papon]

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".

[Pepe Papon]

I can always count on you, pickle, to avoid giving a straight answer.

[Pepe Papon]

OK, thanks.

> From the BC Code of Professional Conduct:
>
>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:

[BillB]

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?

[ChrisRobin]

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

[Pepe Papon]

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.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:23:23 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

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

They are under no obligation to give me any sort of discount. But go
ahead and scoff. Your mind is made up.

[BillB]

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.

[Pepe Papon]

Frankly, Bill, I'm disappointed that you assumed I had some sort of
sinister motive for asking the question. It's almost as if you had
me confused for some right-winger whose moral code depends on what's
personally profitable for me.

The main reason I asked was that the assertion that it was unethical
came from the other lawyer, and based on the body of that person's
work in this transaction, I don't trust a word she says. I wanted to
know if her assertion was correct.

[BillB]

On 8/9/2012 2:03 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:


> 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?

> The main reason I asked was that the assertion that it was unethical
> came from the other lawyer, and based on the body of that person's
> work in this transaction, I don't trust a word she says. I wanted to
> know if her assertion was correct.

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

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 02:19:25 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>On 8/9/2012 2:03 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>
>> 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?

Maybe it was the way you phrased it. "Doing an end run" around
someone is something that one would automatically assume to be
unethical. At least I would.

>> The main reason I asked was that the assertion that it was unethical
>> came from the other lawyer, and based on the body of that person's
>> work in this transaction, I don't trust a word she says. I wanted to
>> know if her assertion was correct.
>
>Well, frankly, I wish for your sake it would have been the way I
>imagined it, because the other lawyer is right.

Me, too. Then again, it would be silly to believe she's wrong about
everything.

I don't know why this lawyer didn't know he was doing something
unethical. I think his motives were genuine, however. He just
wanted to create an easy, quick transaction even though that didn't
end up happening.

The story isn't completely over, though. There could yet be a happy
ending.

[Travel A]

Pay your bills you cheap prick.