The lawyer/client relationship has substantial ethical implications that are often overlooked especially in times of economic recession. lawyers need to remember that the client’s goals are paramount. When firms are laying off lawyers and staff alike, and there is pressure to produce billable hours, lawyers should remember that the client’s needs comes first. A client is in the same recession. The temptation to litigate and run up fees to save one’s job, pay one’s bills, keep the firm alive, etc., must be tempered against the risk that doing so, costs the client more in the long run. A lawyer who has his client’s best interest at heart, will check in with the client to assess and revise strategy to make certain that the strategy fits the client’s needs. It is the responsibility of the lawyer to make certain that the ends are justified by the means. It does no good to a client to pay legal fees to obtain an uncollectable judgment, or to pay legal fees that exceeed the matter’s value to the client. Accepting this responsiblity will earn you the respect of the client, something that has longstanding value.
valenti law
7th Circuit Affirms $80K Sanction: If Lawyer Can’t Pay, Bankruptcy Is Next Step
Known for his sometimes-blistering views on attorney competency issues, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals takes something of a kindly tone, initially, in an opinion today upholding an $80,000 sanction against an impoverished attorney.
But, writing on behalf of a three-judge panel, Easterbrook nonetheless finds that a lawyer who pursued litigation over a labor union election based on a number of "fanciful" allegations is responsible for the defendants' legal costs.
An argument by attorney James Gordon Banks that he has only $2,000, his clothing, his watch and his wedding band—and no malpractice insurance—is irrelevant to a claim for sanctions for vexatious litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the judge explains. Although a lawyer's ability to pay is properly taken into account in a sanctions award under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is not considered under Section 1927 because the fee-shifting statute essentially makes vexatious litigation a type of intentional tort.
You must be logged in to post a comment.