Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Adverse authority or adverse controlling authority, in United States law, is some controlling authority based on a legal decision and opposed to the position of an attorney in a case before the court. The attorney is under an ethical obligation to disclose that legal decision, which is an adverse authority, to the court.
2.1: Attorney's role as a candid advisor on topics within and outside of the law. [15] 3 Advocate 3.3: Duty of Candor in communications with a court. [16] 3.4: Responsibility for cooperation and fair dealing with other parties and attorneys. [17] 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. [18] 4 Transactions with Persons Other Than Clients
Attorney misconduct is unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney. Attorney misconduct may include: conflict of interest, overbilling, false or misleading statements, knowingly pursuing frivolous and meritless lawsuits, concealing evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument ...
The Model Rules address many topics which are found in state ethics rules, including the client-lawyer relationship, duties of a lawyer as advocate in adversary proceedings, dealings with persons other than clients, law firms and associations, public service, advertising, and maintaining the integrity of the profession. Respect of client ...
With certain exceptions, an attorney who becomes aware that either a fellow attorney or a judge has committed an act in violation of the rules of ethical conduct must report that violation. Failure to do so subjects the attorney failing to make the report to discipline. [2] The duty extends only to actual knowledge possessed by an attorney. An ...
Lyon (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a District of Columbia U.S. District Court ruling that spoken words by the defendant in the case that accused the plaintiff of fornication were not actionable for slander because fornication, although involving moral turpitude, was not an indictable offense in the District of Columbia at the time, as ...
“Substantially justified” does not mean “justified to a high degree,” but rather has been said to be satisfied if there is a “genuine dispute,” or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action. Stein v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 317, 320 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565). Thus, a loss on ...
The Code consisted of Canons, Ethical Considerations, and Disciplinary Rules, of which the first two were aspirational and only the third was mandatory. This forced judges and lawyers to sort through a maze of Canons and Ethical Considerations just to understand the Disciplinary Rule that controlled a particular ethical issue.