The ABA Journal reported on an interesting case; where the attorney was unable to get all of its full contingency fees. The reason? Because the client replaced the attorney with himself prior to the $1 million settlement.
New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, ruled in an unsigned opinion that the settlement wasn’t yet final when lawyer Jeffrey Aronsky handled the case because the settlement offer hadn’t been formally communicated to the defendant, Rivlab Transportation. However, the court held that Aronsky will be allowed to place a lien on Gyabaah’s recovery and receive a pro rata fee based on his contributed work, Reuters reports.
Reuters notes that in a dissent, Justice Richard Andrias considered the settlement binding because a general release was signed and defense counsel confirmed in writing that the $1 million settlement offer was accepted.
via Lawyer Replaced by Client Can’t Collect Full Contingency on $1M Settlement, Court Rules – News – ABA Journal.
I came across this post regarding ethics and the use of cloud computing by attorneys. The post is as follows:
MBA Ethics Opinion 12-03 was drafted by the MBA’s Committee on Professional Ethics and approved by the association’s House of Delegates on May 17, 2012. The MBA is not the official lawyer-discipline board in the state, so its ethics opinions are advisory only.
Even so, the MBA’s opinion adds to the growing and unanimous list of lawyer-ethics panels that have concluded that lawyers may ethically use cloud applications and services, provided they take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality and security of the data. (See our earlier post: Two New Legal Ethics Opinions Suggest Clear Skies Ahead for Cloud Computing.)
This brings to 11 the number of states that have ruled on the ethics of cloud computing. In addition to Mass., the other opinions are:
Notably, all of these states agree that the use of cloud computing is ethical.
via Mass. Joins Other States in Ruling that Cloud Computing is Ethical for Lawyers.