If we assume the verein is treated as a single law firm, there is a conflict arising out of the representation of Laser’s Edge and current client Gump. First, based on the facts, I am going to assume that verein member MPG is representing Laser’s Edge in the patent litigation against Gump. With this in mind, we have to determine whether our relationship with Gump has terminated after our last representation of the organization three months ago. Our problem here is that there was no express termination of our attorney-client relationship with Gump and the length of time and number of issues our firm has represented Gump indicate that our relationship is ongoing. When representation is a one-time event, under Restatement (“RST”) §31(2)(e) representation …show more content…
Based on the Perplexity Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Mustang Enterprises, Inc. v. Plug-In Storage Systems, a decision by the Supreme Court of Perplexity, and agency law, the verein should be treated as a single law firm for conflicts purposes. In ABA Opinion 84-351 (Oct. 20, 1984), an opinion supported and affirmed by the court in Mustang, a firm that holds itself out in communications to be “affiliated” with other firms, such as a verein, will be treated as a single form for the purposes of regulating confidential information disclosures and conflicts of interest. Furthermore, MR 1.10(a) imputes conflicts to a lawyer’s firm, comment 1includes in its definition of firm, “other association authorized to practice law.” The court in Mustang, treats the term “associated” and “affiliated” analogously and references decisions, such as Westinghouse v. Kerr-McGee, that treat affiliated firms in the same manner as separate offices of the same firm. Westinghouse held that that offices of the same firm would be treated as a single firm for conflicts purposes. As explained by the court in Mustang, “[w]hen client sees affiliation between law firms client ‘ordinarily also expects that lawyers of the ‘affiliated’ or ‘associated’ form will not simultaneously represent persons whose interests conflict with the client’s
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
According to the court case on Pam Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am in agreement with the fact that the “district court granted summary judgment in favor of Huber” (Morgan, p.413) and that Wal-Mart gave Pam Huber, a maintenance associated job due to her disability. In doing so, I am also in agreement with the fact that Wal-Mart did not breach the American with Disability Act of 1990 due to the fact that Wal-Mart specifically stated what was required of Pam Huber to do on the job. Due to that, I am in agreement with Wal-Mart’s decision to hire a capable candidate in replace of Pam Huber due to their policy.
The plaintiffs, Bosse and Griffin, sued Chili’s for negligence seeking compensatory damages claiming a patron who pursued them following their skipping out on a restaurant bill was acting as agent for Chili’s at the time the patron caused the plaintiff’s car accident and that Chili’s was, therefore, responsible for the crash.
At the trial, after Sue calls her witnesses, offers her evidence, and otherwise presents her side of the case, Tom has at least two choices between courses of action. Tom can call his first witness. What else might he do? (See Following a State Court Case.)
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
...fter the lawyer has explained the conflict. 2 Within the meaning of this rule, direct adversity exists when a firm represents two clients who are engaged in litigation against each other. Under 1.7(a), direct adversity does not exist in these two scenarios.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
In a handful of occasions such as in an interrogation it seems reasonable enough to lie to an individual in order for them to confess to a crime. A case law that shows this was Frazier v. Cupp in which according to Police Link, “ The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing.” In the case of Frazier v. Cupp kept on getting integrated even after he asked to speak to a lawyer so as a result he ended up doing a written confession where he confessed about being part of the murder that was later used as evidence against him.
Deere & Company (Deere) has been experiencing a decrease in its profit margins for one of its aftermarket resale products, specifically the gatherer chain, over the past couple of years. Currently, the cost-price ratio is at 80% compared to last year’s 50%. The purchase cost for the gatherer chain has been steadily increasing, while the aftermarket price has been decreasing. Deere has been budgeting its price to match that of a major competitor, which has been causing the decrease. The company’s main supplier of its gatherer chain is Saunders Manufacturing, with which Deere has established a long term relationship. The owner of Saunders has a reputation of being a tough negotiator, and is someone who is known for not willing to share financial information about the company. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce has provided financial estimates in Saunders’ industry as follows: material spend, 42%; direct labor, 16%; indirect labor, 6%; Overhead, 20%. These percentages are helpful to Deere because they can be used in the negotiation process with Sanders. Since Sanders will not share any specific cost information, Deere is able to use these estimates as a way to justify Sanders reducing its prices. Using these estimates during the negotiations might also incentivize Sanders to provide accurate numbers for its specific manufacturing costs.
Johnson V. M’Intosh case illustrates how the developing United States established the ownership of the Native American land that is now the United States of America. In the case, Johnson had inherited land that was previously owned by a Native American tribe. On the other hand, M’Intosh claimed ownership of the same land because his family had purchased the land from the United States. In the end, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the favor of M’Intosh ownership of the land, because the land is federally owned by the United States government. Chief Justice, John Marshall bases his decision on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, a law that allowed colonial powers to claim newly discovered land. As stated in the course readings, Uneven Roads; the text goes onto explain that Marshall didn’t believe that the Indians had any ‘right of occupancy’ and are not entitled to the ownership of their land. Shaw further
The petitioner, Troy Leon Gregg, in this case had been charged with the armed robbery and murder of two men (Findlaw, 2015). Gregg was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of murder, after which the judge instructed jurors that it could decide between a sentence of either life in prison, or the death penalty, and they could only do so if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murders were committed during the commission of other felonies, that Mr. Gregg murdered these two men for their property, and that the murders themselves were in any way depraved, vile, or inhuman (Findlaw, 2015). The jury found Mr. Gregg guilty of committing the murders during the commission of other felonies, and for the victims’ property, and came back with a sentence of death (Findlaw, 2015).
The Mapp V. Ohio case originated in Ohio in June of 1961, where a number of police officers barged in a woman’s home without a search warrant. This was done since the officers suspected her as a bombing fugative. Which, while some would believe that the reasons were justifiable it was against the constitution. This of course was a violation of a right of the woman, named Dollree Mapp. For the police officers to have committed such an unlawful act against not only a citizen’s right but the law , then that is definitely problematic. Since, after all they violated the fourth amendment which states and gives the right to any inhabitant in the United States to have their right of their privacy being protected and that the law cannot search without a warrant. Justice should definitely be done and Dollree Mapp should have her rights secured.
In People v. Milner, 35 P. 3d 670 (Colo, 2001), the attorney failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of someone she supervised was compatible with her professional obligations, thus, assisting a nonmember of the Colorado bar in unauthorized practice of law and causing harm to her clients. This case establishes that the attorney is ultimately accountable for the actions of the paralegal.