Under the clause proposed by the expert, the law firm`s imposition of personal financial liability for legal counsel and the potentially unfavourable retention of client records serve to aggravate rather than mitigate the consequences of the change in law. As a result, the proposed contractual condition may lead to a violation of Rule 1.16 if it does affect the client`s case. From Counsel adj. Refer to a lawyer who is not actively involved in the day-to-day work of a law firm, but may be available for certain questions or for consultation. This designation often identifies a half-retired partner, a lawyer who uses the office occasionally for a small number of clients, or another who consults only on a particular case or on his or her specialty. If the lawyer`s name is put on the in-mouth paper of a law firm, the office obtains the prestige of the lawyer`s name and reputation, without the need for full-time presence. Source: The People`s Law Dictionary. Notice 87-24 (published in April 1988). The provision of the contract presented in the current investigation does not directly limit the right of the outgoing lawyer to exercise. In fact, it limits its right to represent selected clients.
In addition, the proposed clause, to the extent that the lawyer`s required personal liability discourages the client`s representation, limits the client`s ability to retain an election lawyer. The Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association reviewed a provision in the employment contract requiring an outgoing lawyer to pay 20 percent of the fees for the services provided by counsel to former registry clients at his former law firm. The notice states that the part of the employment contract cited does not prohibit a professional relationship between the retiring lawyer and the clients of his former law firm, but it limits the right of a lawyer to exercise his right after the termination of the relationship established by the employment contract. Their effect is to place under the influence of the creation of a relationship between the lawyer and the client between the outgoing lawyer and the clients of his former firm. Such a barrier is contrary to the notion of legal practice as a profession and at least indirectly impinges on a client`s choice of a lawyer. I do not think the issue of fee allocation is a problem, provided it is dealt with by counsel for consultation (and is generally allowed in most places where the agreement is written with the corresponding disclosure to the client). What is even more amazing is that you have been able to find someone who acts as a consultant, who is willing to accept a fee contribution rather than being paid after work. I have been a business consultant and have never been asked to accept these conditions. The negative impact on legal aid is even worse when you consider that the Council (when working on its own) could be prevented from dealing with issues that are in conflict with the clients/business of your corporate services. I assume that if a case were substantial or unprecedented, I would be willing to consider a royalty participation or a deferred payment of any kind, but not for ordinary neral works.
But I`m not sure, if I were ever consulting with a company on the terms you discussed – too unilaterally from my point of view (although I might feel different if I was retired or working part-time – and maybe that`s a potential reason for finding consultants), I vote for the company to be paid, even if the law firm does not, but it makes it easier for the law firm if the counsel is paid.