legal questions

Yes, because the attorney’s statement did not constitute a statement of fact.

Yes, because as a negotiator, the attorney owes a duty of zealous representation to her client.

No, because the attorney did not believe in the truthfulness of her statement.

No, because the attorney, as a negotiator, owed a duty of candor to the potential buyer.

3. A toy manufacturer was sued by the parent of a child injured by one of its products. As the manufacturer’s attorney was preparing to respond to a discovery request from the plaintiff, the attorney found a document that was very damaging to his client’s case. Prior to complying with the discovery request and turning over the document, the attorney called his opposing counsel and offered to settle the case. The attorney stated that although he believed his client was very likely to win a summary judgment motion, they would settle the case for a modest amount to save the costs of litigation. In fact, the attorney believed his client had no chance of winning a summary judgment motion and was also likely to lose at trial based on the document he had found. The opposing counsel declined the attorney’s offer. The attorney turned over the document, and the case proceeded to trial, where judgment was awarded to the plaintiff. Were the attorney’s statements to the opposing counsel proper?

5.After being given a clean bill of health by the specialist, Plaintiff tells opposing counsel that he will require back surgery for the injuries suffered in the collision. Opposing counsel offers a $20,000 settlement to Plaintiff’s attorney, Lawyer, stating “this amount seems fair given strong possibility that Plaintiff will require surgery.” Lawyer knows about the specialist’s diagnosis and the statement Plaintiff made to the opposing lawyer but accepts the settlement offer without disclosing the facts. Is this ethical (and why)?

6. Lawyer, representing Defendant in an employment discrimination case, tells the opposing lawyer, “I have thoroughly researched the case law and I believe your client has, at best, a 10 percent chance of surviving a summary judgment motion.” In fact, Lawyer has concluded that the odds of his client prevailing in such a motion are approximately 50/50. Is this ethical (and why)?

7. Lawyer, a solo practitioner with a small office and library, representing Defendant in an employment discrimination case, tells the opposing lawyer, who works at a large downtown law firm with vast resources, “I have thoroughly researched the law in our jurisdiction, and there are no reported cases that support your position.” Lawyer knows that although most of the reported cases support Defendant’s position, one case in the jurisdiction clearly supports Plaintiff’s position. Would it change your analysis if Lawyer worked at a large downtown law firm and the opposing lawyer were a solo practitioner (and why)?

8.Lawyer represents a corporate raider who wishes to acquire a Company Q from Owner and, unbeknownst to Owner, plans to immediately sell off Q’s assets. Lawyer tells Owner that it is critical that part of the deal be that Owner agrees to work for Q for one year after the sale to help the new management transition into the company. Lawyer knows that his client has no interest in Owner’s services, and he makes this demand only so he can later “give it up” in return for a price concession. Is this ethical (and why)?