Short outline - Attorney Client Relationships(rules don't...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Attorney Client Relationships (rules don’t speak to when it exists) Focus on standard and particular facts relevant to the standard A. Japanese Investment Case —who communicated to whom, who paid fee, who was billed, what on time sheets. Held: no atty-client relationship because Japanese investors made no contact with the attorney or indicated they wanted services from the lawyer. Atty in case was doing documents that benefited everyone. -explicit agreement -behavior consistent? -reasonable belief (expectation) -part of fees -if lawyer’s work is benefiting a party B. Murray Ohio firm had atty-client relationship but doing work—look at what they did (attend meeting, sent bill, contacted solicitor, how billing) Sullivan & Cromwell represents Murray Ohio (Golden Sachs was an investment adviser and referred Murray to Sullivan, Sullivan claims atty-client relationship only with Golden Sachs and not with Murray) and then one year later represents Electrolux to take over Murray Ohio. Sullivan says it never represented Murray Ohio so had no duty to them and information it had was irrelevant while Murray Ohio says that Sullivan had information about its weaknesses, projected figures, etc. making a conflict of interest and it not able to represent Electrolux. Court usually looks at gap in time C. Parker v. Carnahan (tax case, divorce, lawyer didn’t say we don’t represent you, we just represent your husband)—in Texas treated last part a little differently about not speaking up, can be negligent for failing to tell a person (can be atty client or separate action based on negligence). Mrs. Parker hurt because in deposition kept referring to “my husband’s attorney). Lawyers should have asked her if she had representation, tell her what she was signing had legal consequences, state they they are not her lawyer, if she has questions needs to talk to her own counsel—lawyer shouldn’t give advice/answer questions because then may imply representation. Here lawyers met with her in their office, never explicitly stated they were not her lawyer. Created negligence for failing to tell her. Shows that direct communication doesn’t necessarily mean atty-client relationship. D. Perez (guy in hospital, lawyers from Coke said they were his lawyers too and statements were confidential, lawyers then turned statement over to the D.A. and was indicted). Lawyer created a relationship of trust, can’t generate trust and then turn information over; lawyer made express statements to manifest trust and confidence. Case also stated that relationship may result as a rendering of gratuitous services, can be implied from the conduct of the parties E. Kotzur v. Kelley says that an attorney-client relationship can be implied from the conduct of the parties (Texas case). In this case the atty charged fees, knew the people didn’t have another atty. F.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course F 385 taught by Professor Dzienkowski during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 16

Short outline - Attorney Client Relationships(rules don't...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online