What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Lawyer Dropped Our Daughter As a Client Over Conflict of Interest (1 Viewer)

cstu

cstu

Footballguy
Need some help with a problem with an issue with a law firm.  We've worked with this law firm for two years in dealing with special needs services for our daughter through the school district.  One of the services we received was an in-school aide.  The aide was through an agency that the law firm also works with.  We've had the aide change 7 times in two years, which is not good for my daughter, and this year we decided to change agencies.  This should not be a big issue since we have a right to choose which agency provides the service.

However, when my wife brought it up to our lawyer he told us that the firm can no longer work with us and to find a different lawyer.  I was shocked and then told my wife that I would rather keep the agency (we are happy with the current aide although she has only been there one money) and stay with the law firm (they are known as the best in the city for this issue).  No good, the lawyer and the owner of the firm still denied continuing to work

I'm livid over this but my wife wants to set up a meeting with the owner of the law firm (at $550/hour) in an attempt to convince her to not drop us as clients.  I reluctantly agreed since it feels like begging when they are ones choosing the money (this agency probably brings them a lot of money) over our daughter.

Any ideas, lawyerguys?

 
So, I don't know your jurisdiction, but in the model rules, a lawyer may terminate representation if  "withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client."

What that normally means is that a lawyer can't pull out mid-trial or something.  Just because the firm is the best in a certain field generally wouldn't satisfy the "material adverse effect" threshold. 

My sense is that no conflict exists that mandates terminating you as a client, but that no rule precludes the firm from doing it either. It's not all that uncommon for a firm to fire a client. 

 
I wouldn't pay them $550 for them to tell me to beat it. They have already made their decision. You're actually financing the very lawyering against yourself. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
So, I don't know your jurisdiction, but in the model rules, a lawyer may terminate representation if  "withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client."

What that normally means is that a lawyer can't pull out mid-trial or something.  Just because the firm is the best in a certain field generally wouldn't satisfy the "material adverse effect" threshold. 

My sense is that no conflict exists that mandates terminating you as a client, but that no rule precludes the firm from doing it either. It's not all that uncommon for a firm to fire a client. 
Click to expand...
All true, but it does seem this law firm has a very cozy, exclusive relationship with a non-lawyer consultant. If its at the point where they are forced to fire clients who don't use this one agency, they may have an ethics problem, particularly where that agency is providing sub-standard services.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
All true, but it does seem this law firm has a very cozy, exclusive relationship with a non-lawyer consultant. If its at the point where they are forced to fire clients who don't use this one agency, they may have an ethics problem, particularly where that agency is providing sub-standard services.
Click to expand...
I looked at the part of the rules on lawyer independence and unless they're sharing fees, I don't see a rules violation.  I agree, it seems wrong that big client can say, "we think small client is a pain in the ###, drop him or we walk" but I don't see a rule against it. 

 
If they are privy to information that warrants the termination of the relationship with cstu, doesn't that imply they are privy to information that could potentially harm cstu as well? Goes both ways, does it not? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
Do you absolutely need a lawyer for this? Can you work with the agency directly? Hire Woz?
Click to expand...
Yes, we absolutely do because the school district (the massive LAUSD) doesn't take the case seriously without a lawyer.

 
STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:
If they are privy to information that warrants the termination of the relationship with cstu, doesn't that imply they are privy to information that could potentially harm cstu as well? Goes both ways, does it not? 
Click to expand...
My issue when this came up is why our lawyer did not disclose to us at the original mediation, where the issue of choosing an agency came up, that we would be dropped a client if we ever wanted to change agencies.

I feel like he knew he was getting into a conflict of interest but didn't disclose the nature of it enough for us to make an informed decision. If he had told us this would have been the result then we would have chosen another agency from the beginning.

 
cstu said:
My issue when this came up is why our lawyer did not disclose to us at the original mediation, where the issue of choosing an agency came up, that we would be dropped a client if we ever wanted to change agencies.

I feel like he knew he was getting into a conflict of interest but didn't disclose the nature of it enough for us to make an informed decision. If he had told us this would have been the result then we would have chosen another agency from the beginning.
Click to expand...
I don't see a conflict of interest as it's defined in the model rules.  Are you adverse to the agency in any legal proceeding?  Do you owe them money that they might need to initiate an action to collect?  That's a conflict.  Burger King's lawyers don't have a conflict with representing a client who prefers to go to McDonald's. 

Cletius is right that what seems troubling is that there might be some sort of commercial relationship between the firm and the agency. But we'd need more facts to understand that relationship. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I don't see a conflict of interest as it's defined in the model rules.  Are you adverse to the agency in any legal proceeding?  Do you owe them money that they might need to initiate an action to collect?  That's a conflict.  Burger King's lawyers don't have a conflict with representing a client who prefers to go to McDonald's. 

Cletius is right that what seems troubling is that there might be some sort of commercial relationship between the firm and the agency. But we'd need more facts to understand that relationship. 
Click to expand...
The agency is client of the law firm so their apparent concern is that by assisting us to change agencies that they would be hurting their other client. 

Does it not seem like they engaged in conflict of interest with us by not informing us that we would be dropped as clients if we ever wanted to change agencies?

 
cstu said:
The agency is client of the law firm so their apparent concern is that by assisting us to change agencies that they would be hurting their other client. 

Does it not seem like they engaged in conflict of interest with us by not informing us that we would be dropped as clients if we ever wanted to change agencies?
Click to expand...
Ah, I didn't understand that their representation is required in order for you to change agencies.  That is a conflict of interest. 

Under the Model Rules, I suppose you could look at Rule 1.4.  1.4(a)(5) and 1.4(b) could both be relevant:

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.4 Communication


(a) A lawyer shall:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;

(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Click to expand...

 
By changing agencies are you terminating a contract with them?  Are you in potential breach of contract?  That's a pretty major conflict.

 
some law firms are far more conservative when it comes to conflict than others.  I'm giving up what could be a fairly lucrative client just because there's a possibility that a conflict might arise, and if it did I might lose both clients.  

 
They are free to fire you as clients whether there's a conflict or not. 

Do NOT agree to pay anything to meet with them to beg them to stay on the case. That's a business meeting, not a legal meeting

 
randall146 said:
They are free to fire you as clients whether there's a conflict or not. 

Do NOT agree to pay anything to meet with them to beg them to stay on the case. That's a business meeting, not a legal meeting
Click to expand...
yes, because not paying for their time will convince them that they should keep you as a client.

 
sbonomo said:
I feel like we are not getting the entire story here....
Click to expand...
I agree.  And I wouldn't want these people representing me regardless of their rep.  FInd a better lawyer.

I assume you signed a contract with these people.  That will tell you your rights here.

 
-fish- said:
By changing agencies are you terminating a contract with them?  Are you in potential breach of contract?  That's a pretty major conflict.
Click to expand...
We do not have a contract directly with the agency, the contract is between the agency and the school district. 

 
cancel that meeting, or else walk in and say right away, "Yes or No, will you keep us?".  And then pay the chick her $4.50 for 30 seconds of her time.

 
Mrs. Rannous said:
I agree.  And I wouldn't want these people representing me regardless of their rep.  FInd a better lawyer.

I assume you signed a contract with these people.  That will tell you your rights here.
Click to expand...
It is the whole story.  We apparently ####ed ourselves for choosing this agency (we knew the owner of the agency well since she ran the preschool our daughter went to).  Never thought it would be an issue since we trusted her to her best for our daughter.

Unfortunately, this law firm is the best at what it does (i.e. LAUSD doesn't screw around with them) but I guess we will be looking at other options.

 
cstu said:
It is the whole story.  We apparently ####ed ourselves for choosing this agency (we knew the owner of the agency well since she ran the preschool our daughter went to).  Never thought it would be an issue since we trusted her to her best for our daughter.

Unfortunately, this law firm is the best at what it does (i.e. LAUSD doesn't screw around with them) but I guess we will be looking at other options.
Click to expand...
Would the owner of the agency be willing to sign a waiver of conflict?

 
This is a very interesting thread since I just got off the phone with my wife (an attorney) who is at the high school in the guidance counselor's office.  My elder child at the high school has received great accommodations because my wife made sure it happened (as a parent, not as an attorney).  Now she is there getting things done for my younger child.  I was just thinking she should hire herself out for doing this kind of stuff.  

Sucks you have to get a lawyer to deal with your child's school, especially at that hourly rate.  

PS - I usually attend the meetings also, but not this one.

 
Legally, I have no idea and the lawyer guys in here are offering good info it seems. 

But logically, you certainly seem to be getting screwed. In fact, it seems like the conflict of interest isn't occurring now, it occurred a long time ago when the law firm chose to represent two different parties with potentially competing interests in the same contract. What if the aide from the agency was completely unqualified and incompetent and you were forced to sue in order to get them removed? At that point they'd just inform you that you're screwed and you need to find another lawyer while they protect their other client?

At the very least, it seems incredibly unethical to not mention that there was a potential conflict of interest and obtain your approval to move forward despite that conflict. 

Did the law firm suggest that agency, or did it just happen that the agency that was chosen has the same lawyers? Because if the law firm suggested the agency, that's even worse.

 
belljr said:
For us dummies...

Why do you need a lawyer to get services at school?
Click to expand...
I'll explain...

In the LAUSD system you first go through an IEP (individualized educational program) process where the district offers services, usually the bare minimum of services it can get away with.  The system is set up where LAUSD will provide more services for students if parent fight for them through due process.  I would guess that 95%+ parents have neither the time nor the resources to hire a lawyer to go through mediation so LAUSD saves a lot of money this way.

The first year we were parents who thought what we were asking for was reasonable so we went to mediation without a lawyer, armed with a stack of recommendations from various therapists and information about my daughter's disability.  Boy was that a mistake - the mediator didn't budge and we had to escalate to a second mediation.  For that one we hired a lawyer (different law firm) and got the services we requested.  However, that lawyer made a rather large mistake in the paperwork he filed with LAUSD so we decided not to use him again.  That's when we hired the current law firm, which is the best known and thus most effective in dealing with LAUSD.  We've used them for the past 3 years without an issue.

 
GroveDiesel said:
Legally, I have no idea and the lawyer guys in here are offering good info it seems. 

But logically, you certainly seem to be getting screwed. In fact, it seems like the conflict of interest isn't occurring now, it occurred a long time ago when the law firm chose to represent two different parties with potentially competing interests in the same contract. What if the aide from the agency was completely unqualified and incompetent and you were forced to sue in order to get them removed? At that point they'd just inform you that you're screwed and you need to find another lawyer while they protect their other client?

At the very least, it seems incredibly unethical to not mention that there was a potential conflict of interest and obtain your approval to move forward despite that conflict. 

Did the law firm suggest that agency, or did it just happen that the agency that was chosen has the same lawyers? Because if the law firm suggested the agency, that's even worse.
Click to expand...
You know what, that's a point I'll bring up with the owner of the law firm.

At the mediation LAUSD offered several choices but we chose the one we did since we knew the owner of the agency.  Our lawyer did tell us that he had represented that woman who owns the agency in other cases with LAUSD but did not warn us that we would be dropped as clients in case we wanted to change agencies.

 
For those not in the know...

The Los Angeles Unified School District is the 2nd largest school district in the nation.  

I hate to paint with a broad brush but imagine if the DMV, the IRS,  the NCAA,  FIFA,  and the International Olympic Committee staged some ungodly orgy and produced an offspring.  And that issue was raised by nothing but people with advanced degrees in Education. 

(and not to disparage the hard working teachers of the LAUSD...I'm talking about the fuster cluck of a bureaucracy they have created)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Off topic, but there is a new TV show called Speechless on ABC about a special needs kid and the family hiring an aid.  It stars Minnie Driver and it is pretty funny.

That's it...carry on.

 
Did your lawyer tell you there was a conflict?  Or that they just no longer wanted to work with you?  Big difference, and both are discussed in here.  If it's a waivable conflict, the lawyer probably would have said that to you already - most lawyers don't like to turn down work. If you're just being dropped, ask yourself if you are a pia or not?  Do you pay your bill on time?  Lawyers can fire clients.

if it's a conflict, ask him for names of other lawyers he trusts.

 
cashman88 said:
Did your lawyer tell you there was a conflict?  Or that they just no longer wanted to work with you?  Big difference, and both are discussed in here.  If it's a waivable conflict, the lawyer probably would have said that to you already - most lawyers don't like to turn down work. If you're just being dropped, ask yourself if you are a pia or not?  Do you pay your bill on time?  Lawyers can fire clients.

if it's a conflict, ask him for names of other lawyers he trusts.
Click to expand...
We weren't told it was going to be a conflict of interest for them or we would have chosen another agency.

No, we're not a PIA - we pay an upfront fee and then the lawyer is reimbursed by LAUSD for the rest.  It's rather easy money for them and I think they are concerned we could sue them if they continue to handle the case.

He has already gave us the name of another lawyer.

 
Sconch said:
For those not in the know...

The Los Angeles Unified School District is the 2nd largest school district in the nation.  

I hate to paint with a broad brush but imagine if the DMV, the IRS,  the NCAA,  FIFA,  and the International Olympic Committee staged some ungodly orgy and produced an offspring.  And that issue was raised by nothing but people with advanced degrees in Education. 

(and not to disparage the hard working teachers of the LAUSD...I'm talking about the fuster cluck of a bureaucracy they have created)
Click to expand...
That might be the greatest description of all time

 
Sorry cstu I really don't have any sympathy for your plight. People like you and your situation are just like the less than 5% of people getting screwed by obamacare that you've shown no sympathy for.  You've made it quite clear in that thread that 'you got yours' so screw everyone else.   Deal with the system and take your medicine like you've advocated them doing.  

 
cstu said:
We weren't told it was going to be a conflict of interest for them or we would have chosen another agency.

No, we're not a PIA - we pay an upfront fee and then the lawyer is reimbursed by LAUSD for the rest.  It's rather easy money for them and I think they are concerned we could sue them if they continue to handle the case.

He has already gave us the name of another lawyer.
Click to expand...
if the bold is true, then its probably not a waivable conflict, and you'll have to get another lawyer.  I can't imagine that this is the only law firm that will be able to successfully represent you against the LAUSD.

 
boots11234 said:
Sorry cstu I really don't have any sympathy for your plight. People like you and your situation are just like the less than 5% of people getting screwed by obamacare that you've shown no sympathy for.  You've made it quite clear in that thread that 'you got yours' so screw everyone else.   Deal with the system and take your medicine like you've advocated them doing.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but at least my end goal is for people to have better health care than they had either before ACA or during it. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chet
Legal Question--Can't find the Lawyer Thread
Replies
11
Views
561
STEADYMOBBIN 22
STEADYMOBBIN 22
bigbottom
2024 Edition - Please help bigbottom win a Battle of the Bands and support Chance for Hope as a Bonus! Just a $10 donation makes a difference
Replies
26
Views
401
Mr.Pack
Mr.Pack
Snotbubbles
Thinking About Moving To Florida. Help please.
2 3
Replies
139
Views
4K
CGRdrJoe
CGRdrJoe

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top