|
It's questionable, but it remains that the hypothetical fact of the friendship was disclosed. The implications are not facts and were left to the beneficiary to arrive at. I think the lawyer met his ethical duty by disclosing the friendship before he was retained. Believe it or not, the legal field is a relatively small community and because of that most lawyers know their fellow lawyers within their community and are friends, of a sort, with them. I assume that different from the 'good friend' situation here, but still the standard for showing an ethical violation or malpractice here is going to be pretty high.
Also, I want to point out that the implication is not so one sided. In many cases having attorneys on friendly terms with one another can be beneficial by allowing a greater latitude within the rules and by increasing the chances of a mutually beneficial settlement. Of course, if the friendship is clearly dominated by one 'friend' this could be problematic.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|