"Potential conflicts of interest for representation that is adverse to the government. "A lawyer must represent her clients 'zealously and diligently,'" the opinion said. "This includes the right of each client to conflict-free representation because a conflicted lawyer may be tempted, consciously or otherwise, to pull her punches in advocating for or otherwise representing her client." To continue the representation, the lawyer must disclose the conflict and obtain informed consent from the client."
"But a firm may not be able to give full disclosure of the conflict if it doesn't know which of its actions might trigger adverse government action. "Obtaining a valid waiver may be difficult," the opinion said. Restrictions on a lawyer's right to practice. Lawyers are prohibited from making agreements in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy."
Law firms that enter into agreements with government that limit or shape firm practices face several ethical risks. Potential conflicts arise when representing clients adverse to the government and may undermine conflict-free advocacy. Firms may struggle to provide full disclosure and obtain informed waivers if they cannot predict which actions will trigger government responses. Agreements that include restrictions on a lawyer's right to practice as part of settlements are prohibited. Third-party direction that influences client acceptance or the services provided can improperly limit professional judgment. Large pro bono commitments tied to political deals exemplify these concerns.
Read at ABA Journal
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]