Interesting story
Comments
I agree that the lawyer could conceivably have a conflict with the client’s best interests. I’ve known lawyers who were more interested in making important new law than in protecting the client (by, for example, settling). I also wonder about the agreement mentioned in the article — that the client agrees that the lawyer gets to do the oral argument. Given the largely unfettered right of the client to select counsel, fire counsel, hire new counsel, etc., are such clauses enforceable? If their not enforceable, should a lawyer include them in the agreement? If anyone has an exemplar of such a clause, it would be interesting to read. I imagine that the clause uses the threat of having to pay fees as the means for incenting the client to live up to the agreement that the lawyer gets the oral argument.
Posted by: John Steele | Oct 11, 2010 12:39:45 PM