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

[JoeSteeler]

Sue the lawyer for punitive damages

 

[belljr]

Oof. Had no idea gl

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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?

IMO the firm has been in conflict the whole time. Yes I think you should be pissed off. Yes I think they were unethical before and they're unethical now. My guess is regardless this is a well know law firm and the local bar would be uninterested in any complaint even though IMO one would be well founded. 

However logically there is no reason they cannot represent you if you join another agency. Assuming they think it was ok to represent both agency and client before, the only real conflict from their 'POV' is in the decision to choose another agency. If you do that on your own or consult another lawyer solely on that decision once you have made the switch so long as there are no allegations remaining against the old agency that they would have to deal with then I don't see why they can't ethically represent you vs the SD. Unless of course they are the ones interposing business over their ethical duty to their client by trying to stop you from switching. 

However any time an attorney has to make any decision or consultation affecting another client he has to step aside for that decision. I don't understand how he has been consulting you from the beginning without crossing the line whenever he had to advise you about the work the agency was doing. They must be doing this with a lot of their clients. Pisses me off really. In that respect the firm would actually remove the conflict if you signed with another agency, they would then be acting ethically, but they don't want that apparently.

 

[Christo]

IMO the firm has been in conflict the whole time. Yes I think you should be pissed off. Yes I think they were unethical before and they're unethical now. My guess is regardless this is a well know law firm and the local bar would be uninterested in any complaint even though IMO one would be well founded. 

However logically there is no reason they cannot represent you if you join another agency. Assuming they think it was ok to represent both agency and client before, the only real conflict from their 'POV' is in the decision to choose another agency. If you do that on your own or consult another lawyer solely on that decision once you have made the switch so long as there are no allegations remaining against the old agency that they would have to deal with then I don't see why they can't ethically represent you vs the SD. Unless of course they are the ones interposing business over their ethical duty to their client by trying to stop you from switching. 

However any time an attorney has to make any decision or consultation affecting another client he has to step aside for that decision. I don't understand how he has been consulting you from the beginning without crossing the line whenever he had to advise you about the work the agency was doing. They must be doing this with a lot of their clients. Pisses me off really. In that respect the firm would actually remove the conflict if you signed with another agency, they would then be acting ethically, but they don't want that apparently.

Nice, except for the fact you have no clue why they did what they did.

 

[cstu]

IMO the firm has been in conflict the whole time. Yes I think you should be pissed off. Yes I think they were unethical before and they're unethical now. My guess is regardless this is a well know law firm and the local bar would be uninterested in any complaint even though IMO one would be well founded. 

However logically there is no reason they cannot represent you if you join another agency. Assuming they think it was ok to represent both agency and client before, the only real conflict from their 'POV' is in the decision to choose another agency. If you do that on your own or consult another lawyer solely on that decision once you have made the switch so long as there are no allegations remaining against the old agency that they would have to deal with then I don't see why they can't ethically represent you vs the SD. Unless of course they are the ones interposing business over their ethical duty to their client by trying to stop you from switching. 

However any time an attorney has to make any decision or consultation affecting another client he has to step aside for that decision. I don't understand how he has been consulting you from the beginning without crossing the line whenever he had to advise you about the work the agency was doing. They must be doing this with a lot of their clients. Pisses me off really. In that respect the firm would actually remove the conflict if you signed with another agency, they would then be acting ethically, but they don't want that apparently.

This is my wife's reasoning for meeting with the owner.  She's the level-headed one and wants to hire another lawyer this year, switch agencies, and then go back to this law firm.

No matter how much I feel they were unethical, I'm not interested in complaining to anyone.  We just want the best representation possible for our daughter and if that means sticking with a firm I've lost a lot of respect for then so be it. 

 

[jon_mx]

Find another lawyer

To sue the first lawyer to force him to represent them?  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is my wife's reasoning for meeting with the owner.  She's the level-headed one and wants to hire another lawyer this year, switch agencies, and then go back to this law firm.

No matter how much I feel they were unethical, I'm not interested in complaining to anyone.  We just want the best representation possible for our daughter and if that means sticking with a firm I've lost a lot of respect for then so be it. 

I agree just do what's best for your child. You have my total respect and admiration. Good luck.

 

[Otis]

You don't want to work with a law firm that doens't want to be working for you.  Trust me.  Move on.  Lots of other lawyers.

 

[randall146]

yes, because not paying for their time will convince them that they should keep you as a client.

I don't do billable hours, but I can't believe lawyers would charge billable time for negotiating fees

 

[Johnny Rock]

You don't want to work with a law firm that doens't want to be working for you.  Trust me.  Move on.  Lots of other lawyers.

Agree. Why would you? Take the hint and move on. Groveling is not a pretty place to be. They're not going to tell you the real reason anyway. 

If you already secured the services your daughter needs do you have to continually fight more legal battles? Add it to the long-running "California is ####ed Up" file. 

 

[Mr. Ected]

This is my wife's reasoning for meeting with the owner.  She's the level-headed one and wants to hire another lawyer this year, switch agencies, and then go back to this law firm.

No matter how much I feel they were unethical, I'm not interested in complaining to anyone.  We just want the best representation possible for our daughter and if that means sticking with a firm I've lost a lot of respect for then so be it. 

I don't think you would be 'complaining;' that would be writing on Yelp that a restaurant overcooked your steak. This is is more like telling a medical board that your dentist pulled an extra tooth out and charged you triple for it. 

 

[cstu]

Update:

Strange turn of events.  My wife went to meet with the owner of the law office by herself today and the owner (the one feared by the school district) decided to take the case personally.  Wife said the lawyer was very nice and the issue of conflict of interest never came after my wife mentioned she wanted to stay with the current agency.  So while we're out a $2k retainer at least we have the best lawyer fighting for our daughter.  Only negative is she's very busy and can't get started on it for 3 weeks, still very happy about it though.