FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125682610> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125682610 endingPage "755" @default.
• W3125682610 startingPage "715" @default.
• W3125682610 abstract "This article deals with a significant, timely problem facing the legal profession. The problem is significant because the number of malpractice claims filed against attorneys is steadily increasing. The article cites a 2012 American Bar Association study finding more than a 30% increase in the number of claims reported between 2007 and 2011. The problem is also timely because of two 2013 state supreme court decisions. Until recently, the majority view was that if a current outside client threatened its firm with a malpractice claim, the attorney-client privilege did not apply to the consultations between the firm members representing the client and in-house counsel responsible for issues such as ethics and risk management. Thus, in any subsequent malpractice litigation, the former client could discover any written records of the internal consultations and depose firm members about related oral communications. However, on July 10, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided to recognize an intra-firm privilege; and on the very next day, July 11, 2013, the Georgia Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion. The thesis of the enclosed article is that the Georgia and Massachusetts courts arguably reached the right result. The first part of this article is descriptive, surveying the current split of authority. The second and third parts are evaluative. The second part addresses the threshold question of whether the courts should recognize an intra-firm privilege in any circumstances. The second part criticizes the majority view and, in particular, challenges traditionalists' reliance on the so-called fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege. The third part attempts to identify the circumstances in which the courts ought to uphold an infra-firm privilege. Initially, the third party reviews the internal procedures that the firm ought to put in place to establish its status as the client of the in-house counsel. The third party then turns to the thorny question of whether the firm may engage in such internal consultations even without the outside client's consent. The article suggests that the argument for requiring the client's consent misconceives an evidentiary issues as an ethics question. Given the paucity of authority in point and the recency of the Georgia and Massachusetts decisions, the article does not purport to offer a definitive analysis of these issues. However, legal malpractice claims are so common and the interests of the bar and its clientele are so vital that the current split of authority is unsatisfactory. The intent of this article is to prompt a deeper, more robust debate over these issues." @default.
• W3125682610 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125682610 creator A5014574794 @default.
• W3125682610 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W3125682610 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3125682610 title "Preliminary Thoughts on an Attorney-Client Privilege for Law Firms: When a Current Client Threatens to Sue the Firm for Malpractice, Does the Privilege Apply to the Firm's Consultation with In-House Counsel about the Potential Claim?" @default.
• W3125682610 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W3125682610 type Work @default.
• W3125682610 sameAs 3125682610 @default.
• W3125682610 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3125682610 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125682610 hasAuthorship W3125682610A5014574794 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C2776697845 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C2779103253 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C2780138299 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConcept C2993469667 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C144133560 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C17744445 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C199539241 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C2776697845 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C2776798817 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C2778272461 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C2779103253 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C2780138299 @default.
• W3125682610 hasConceptScore W3125682610C2993469667 @default.
• W3125682610 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3125682610 hasLocation W31256826101 @default.
• W3125682610 hasOpenAccess W3125682610 @default.
• W3125682610 hasPrimaryLocation W31256826101 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W12804015 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W1480229719 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W1593617047 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W1593684348 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W1805149652 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W2125109657 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W2297528123 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W260227746 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W2747489362 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W295984753 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W3124751500 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W3125091653 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W3164516814 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W3194830616 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W3211844796 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W323777896 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W52580691 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W89083879 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W185323551 @default.
• W3125682610 hasRelatedWork W3122903074 @default.
• W3125682610 hasVolume "48" @default.
• W3125682610 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125682610 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125682610 magId "3125682610" @default.
• W3125682610 workType "article" @default.