7.3 Legal Issues and Business Ownership True or False

[6] Many of the rules of professional conduct require that a lawyer obtain the informed consent of a client or other person (e.g., a former client or, in certain circumstances, a potential client) before accepting or continuing to represent himself or herself or to continue his or her conduct. See, for example, rpc 1.2(c), 1.6(a) and 1.7(b). The disclosure required to obtain such consent varies depending on the rule and circumstances that require the need for informed consent. The lawyer must use reasonable efforts to ensure that the client or another person has the appropriate information to make an informed decision. As a general rule, this requires notice that includes disclosure of the facts and circumstances that led to the situation, any explanation reasonably necessary to inform the customer or another person of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed behavior, and a discussion of the options and alternatives of the customer or another person. In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for a lawyer to advise a client or other person to seek the advice of another lawyer. A lawyer does not need to inform a client or any other person of the facts or implications already known to the client or any other person; Nevertheless, a lawyer who does not personally inform the client or another person assumes the risk that the client or another person is not sufficiently informed and that consent is ineffective. In determining whether the information and explanations provided are adequate, relevant factors include whether the client or another person has experience in legal matters in general and in decision-making of the type concerned and whether the client or another person is independently represented by another lawyer in granting consent. Normally, these people need less information and explanation than others, and in general, it should be assumed that a client or other person who is independently represented by another lawyer when giving consent has given informed consent. [4] Legal arguments based on a knowing misrepresentation of the law constitute dishonesty to the court.

A lawyer is not required to make an altruistic presentation of the law, but must acknowledge the existence of the competent judicial authorities. In addition, as specified in paragraph (a)(2), an agent is required to directly disclose adverse powers in the dominant jurisdiction that have not been disclosed by the other party. The underlying concept is that the legal argument is a discussion that seeks to determine the legal premises that are correctly applicable to the case. A major problem with partnerships, as with sole proprietorships, is unlimited liability: in this case, each partner is personally liable not only for his own actions, but also for the actions of all partners. If your partner in an architectural firm makes a mistake that causes a structure to collapse, the loss suffered by your business will affect you as much as he does. And here`s the very bad news: if the company doesn`t have cash or other assets to cover the losses, you can be sued in person for the amount due. In other words, the party who suffered a loss as a result of the error can sue you for your personal property. Many people are naturally reluctant to enter into partnerships because they have unlimited liability.

Some forms of business allow owners to limit their liability. These include limited partnerships and partnerships. [7] The onus is on counsel to prove that, in the circumstances, he or she took the appropriate steps to convey the desired understanding. For example, a user demanding legal-related services, such as a publicly traded company, may require less explanation than a person who is not accustomed to distinguishing between legal and law-related services, such as a person who seeks tax advice from a lawyer and accountant or investigative services in connection with a legal dispute. [9] Since the provision of pro bono services is a professional responsibility, it is the individual ethical obligation of each lawyer. Nevertheless, it may happen that it is not possible for a lawyer to use pro bono services. In such moments, a lawyer may fulfill their pro bono responsibility by providing financial support to organizations that provide free legal services to people with limited funds. Such financial support should be proportionate to the value of the hours of service that would otherwise have been provided. In addition, it may sometimes be more practical to collectively discharge pro bono responsibility, for example, through a company`s aggregate pro bono activities. [2] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an official of the legal system and a citizen of public law who has a particular responsibility for the quality of the judiciary.

(2) a judicial officer or a public legal adviser; or [10] If the client`s approach has already begun and will continue, the lawyer`s responsibility is particularly delicate. In certain situations, under Rule 1.6, the lawyer may have the right or obligation to disclose the client`s misconduct. See RPC 1.6(b)(1) and (c)(1). In all cases, however, the lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example by creating or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent, or by suggesting how the misconduct could be concealed. A lawyer may not continue to assist a client in conduct that he or she originally believed to be legally correct, but then determines to be criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must therefore withdraw from the client`s representation on the merits. See RPC 1.16(a). In some cases, withdrawal alone may not be enough. It may be necessary for the lawyer to announce the fact of the withdrawal and not to confirm an opinion, document, confirmation or other.

See RPC 4.1. [11] The legal profession is largely autonomous. While other professions have also been granted self-government powers, the legal profession is unique in this regard because of the close relationship between the profession and government and law enforcement processes. This link is manifested in the fact that ultimate authority over the legal profession is largely transferred to the courts. [1] A lawyer is generally not obliged to accept a client whose character or cause he or she deems repugnant. However, the lawyer`s freedom to select clients is limited. All lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the provision of pro bono public services. See RPC 6.1. A single lawyer fulfills this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or from impoverished or unpopular clients. A lawyer may also be appointed by a court to serve unpopular clients or individuals who cannot afford legal services.

[4] If lawyers within a law firm have been linked, but then terminate their relationship, the question of whether a lawyer should take over the representation is more complicated. There are several competing considerations. First, the client previously represented by the former law firm must be sufficiently certain that the principle of loyalty to the client will not be compromised. Second, the rule should not be broad enough to prevent others from having an appropriate choice of lawyer. Third, the rule should not unreasonably prevent lawyers from forming new associations and accepting new clients after leaving a previous association. In this context, it must be recognized that today many lawyers work in law firms, that many lawyers limit their activity to a certain extent to one field or another and that many move from one association to another several times in their careers. If the concept of imputation were applied with absolute rigour, the result would be a radical restriction of lawyers` ability to move from one practice to another and of clients` ability to change lawyers. ISED also classifies businesses with 1 to 4 employees as micro-enterprises. [4] This rule represents a balance of interests.

On the one hand, if successive clients are a government agency and a private client, there is a risk that the power or discretion conferred on that body could be used for the particular benefit of a retail client. A lawyer should not be in a position where the benefit to a private client could interfere with the performance of the lawyer`s professional duties on behalf of the government. In addition, the private client could gain an unfair advantage from access to confidential government information about the client`s adversary, which is only available through the lawyer`s government service.