![]() Rapaport’s involvement in the cases cited can hardly be spun as benefitting the interests of the clients involved or furthering the purpose of Rule 1.5(e). In fact, another ethical rule ( Rule 7.2(k)) was written to combat one form of manipulation of Rule 1.5(e). Rule 1.5(e) is not always used for its intended purposes. As the framers’ comment to Rule 1.5(e) explains, the intent is ultimately to improve the quality of representation afforded to the client.īut as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It gives this attorney a reasonable alternative to walking away from the chance at an enormous payday by making the highly ethical, and selfless, choice that not all attorneys would actually make. Rule 1.5(e) discourages an attorney in this position from taking an irresponsible risk at their client’s peril. These types of cases can produce enormous recoveries, and the small solo practitioner might otherwise feel financial pressure to take the case despite his lack of knowledge in mass tort law and thus the likelihood of making significant errors throughout the representation. For example, a small criminal law practitioner may meet a client who needs representation for a complex mass tort case. ![]() The rule was intended mainly to discourage attorneys from accepting cases that require work beyond their own skill, experience, and expertise by incentivizing them to refer such cases to a more qualified attorney with the promise of a share in the ultimate recovery. ![]() Rule 1.5(e) allows unassociated attorneys to split fees as long as some simple requirements are met. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |