The article is here. After a $24m verdict, AG learned that the client had forged contracts and emails. It disclosed the information and withdrew. Stay tuned.
The article is here. After a $24m verdict, AG learned that the client had forged contracts and emails. It disclosed the information and withdrew. Stay tuned.
ABA Model Rules – notes to Rule 3.3:
“Withdrawal
Normally, a lawyer’s compliance with the duty of candor imposed by this Rule does not require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client whose interests will be or have been adversely affected by the lawyer’s disclosure.”
So, it appears to be overstatements of both “have to withdraw” and “not ethical to continue to represent.”
Right, lawyer doesn’t have to withdraw but if I were advising Akin Gump I would have told them to run far, and fast. There’s a thicket of issues around client fraud, and staying in the case is, almost always, the best course for lawyer and client.
Yes – a particular course of action may be different (the great legal position of “it depends” is always in play as to any particular chosen action) – but I wanted to point out that the rules do allow for something different than what was being said.
If a lawyer learns his services were used to commit a fraud, he has to withdraw and take remedial measures. A lawyer who stayed in after that is committing hari kari (sp).
1. Disclosed the fraud?
2. And withdrew?
I see 1, but 2?
I can see 2 if the client refuses to follow advice. But if the fraud is disclosed, withdrawing only hurts the client.
I don’t think you can ethically continue to represent someone who lied to you, and who you no longer trust. They would be better off with new counsel and a clean slate.
Comments are closed.