Clas 4: Relationships Betwen Lawyers and Clients (Ch. 4)

Question 1

May a lawyer who does extensive elf-education to prepare to represent a client in a new field bill a client for that study time?

Answer 1

Lawyer who bill by the hour routinely charge for time spent on research, but a lawyer may be subject to discipline if the lawyer bills the client for spending an unreasonable amount of time on research, especially if the research does not lead to worthwhile progress in the matter.

A lawyer should reach an explicit agreement with the client regarding billing.

Question 2

Is a lawyer obliged to help a client who wants to hire him?

Answer 2

In general, lawyers are allowed the discretion to decide whom to represent. They don’t have to accept any particular clients and may craft their practices according to their interests and aspirations.

Question 3

Rule 6.1

Answer 3

A lawyer should “aspire” to provide at least 50 hours per year of pro bono representation.

Doesn’t compel a lawyer to represent or assist any particular indigent person. It urges lawyers to assist some clients in this category.

Rule 6.1, Comment 1: “All lawyer have a responsibility to assist in providing pro bono public service. . . . An individual lawyer fulfills this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular clients. [No lawyer is obliged to accept representation of a client] whose character or cause the lawyer regards as repugnant.”

Question 4

Rule 6.2

Answer 4

Lawyers must accept court appointment to represent an indigent criminal defendant, except for “good cause.”

Question 5

True or False:

A lawyer may decline to represent a client for discriminatory reasons (race, religion, nationality, sex, age, disability, or another protected category).

Answer 5

False.

Question 6

Elements of Legal Malpractice:

[from Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1980)]

Answer 6

“In a legal malpractice action of the type involved here, four elements must be shown:

1. That an attorney-client relationship existed;
2. That defendant acted negligently or in breach of contract;
3. That such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ damages;
4. That but for the defendant’s conduct the plaintiffs would have been successful in the prosecution of their . . . claim.”