An absolute net lease has no legal defenses if Simon fails to pay.
He becomes difficult to work with, and she then says she's not his agent because they don't have a signed agency agreement.
Gus has applied for a home equity line of credit from his federally insured bank so that he can make some renovations to his kitchen. The same bank is his lender for his home mortgage. Will this loan be subject to Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act requirements?
Leon and Beth own 1/13 of a timeshare estate. How many weeks each year do they get to use the timeshare unit?
Eileen is preparing a quarterly report pursuant to the terms of a property management agreement. This report shows the property owner whether this property operated at a surplus or deficit during the reporting period. What report is she preparing?
Yes, because RESPA applies to any residential loan transaction from a federally insured financial institution, including equity lines of credit.
You have an environmental law practice and are currently representing a client in county A that is defending against a complaint by the state environmental protection agency alleging that the client’s use of a certain pesticide poses a threat to the local groundwater.
Note that in 2009, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. The Maine version of paragraph 24 of the Comment to Rule 1.7 is similar to the ABA version.
The Committee is therefore of the opinion that if the two matters are being litigated in the same jurisdiction, and there is a substantial risk that the law firm’s representation of one client will create a legal precedent, even if not binding, which is likely materially to undercut the legal position being urged on behalf of the other client, the lawyer should either refuse to accept the second representation or (if otherwise permissible) withdraw from the first, unless both clients consent after full disclosure of the potential ramifications of the lawyer continuing to handle both matters.
A lawyer may represent parties having antagonistic positions on a legal question that has arisen in different cases, unless representation of either client would be adversely affected. Thus, it is ordinarily not improper to assert such positions in cases pending in different trial courts, but it may be improper to do so in cases pending at the same time in an appellate court.
The committee took issue with this comment, not ing that representing two clients in different trial courts while advocating opposing sides of the same issue could manifest as conflicts of interest under Rule 1.7 just as they could if both matters were pending in the same appellate court. A decision in one trial court could influence the outcome of the second matter in the other trial court, and a decision in an appellate court would most likely have an adverse effect on a matter pending at the trial court.
Ordinarily a lawyer may take inconsistent legal positions in different tribunals at different times on behalf of different clients. The mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists, however, if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer’s effectiveness in representing another client in a different case;… Factors relevant in determining whether the clients need to be advised of the risk include: where the cases are pending, whether the issue is substantive or procedural, the temporal relationship between the matters, the significance of the issue to the immediate and long-term interests of the clients involved and the clients’ reasonable expectations in retaining the lawyer. If there is significant risk of material limitation, then absent informed consent of the affected clients, the lawyer must refuse one of the representations or withdraw from one or both matters.
The ABA opinion would bar undertaking a matter if there were a substantial risk that it would establish a legal precedent which was likely to materially undercut the legal position being urged by that law firm on behalf of another client. Conversely, the majority would permit a law firm to advocate conflicting positions on the same issue even though it would, under some circumstances, materially and adversely affect the firm’s duty to one client in violation of Bar Rule 3.4 (b) (1) by establishing a disadvantageous precedent in the case of client #2.
It was not intended that the interests of two or more clients would be deemed conflicting *solely* because, in otherwise unrelated proceedings, a lawyer might be required to advance contradictory legal positions on their behalf.
The real basis for the majority’s restrictive application of Rule 3.4 (b) (1) in cases involving positional conflicts is that the task of searching for the existence of such conflicts within a law firm, particularly a large one, would be overwhelming. However, if an attorney were deemed to be guilty of a conflict of interest only when he or she knowingly[3] advocated a position on an issue on which another member of the firm had been engaged to argue the opposing point of view, it would be unnecessary to search the office for potential positional conflicts. At the same time, the Bar and the public would not be exposed to the spectacle of an attorney litigating an issue knowing that, if he or she were successful, the outcome would materially and adversely affect the resolution of a pending matter involving another client of the same law firm.
The ABA Opinion goes on to require that even if the cases are not being litigated in the same jurisdiction,
if the two matters are being litigated in the same jurisdiction, and there is a substantial risk that the law firm’s representation of one client will create a legal precedent, even if not binding, which is likely materially to undercut the legal position being urged on behalf of the other client, the lawyer should either refuse to accept the second representation or (if otherwise permissible) withdraw from the first, unless both clients consent after full disclosure of the potential ramifications of the lawyer continuing to handle both matters.
First, the ABA opinion is based, in part, on the ABA Model Rules and the commentary accompanying those Rules.
A lawyer may represent parties having antagonistic positions on a legal question that has arisen in different cases, unless representation of either client would be adversely affected. Thus, it is ordinarily not improper to assert such position in cases pending in different trial courts, but it may be improper to, do so in cases pending at the same time in an appellate court.
An absolute net lease has no legal defenses if Simon fails to pay.
He becomes difficult to work with, and she then says she's not his agent because they don't have a signed agency agreement.
Gus has applied for a home equity line of credit from his federally insured bank so that he can make some renovations to his kitchen. The same bank is his lender for his home mortgage. Will this loan be subject to Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act requirements?
Leon and Beth own 1/13 of a timeshare estate. How many weeks each year do they get to use the timeshare unit?
Eileen is preparing a quarterly report pursuant to the terms of a property management agreement. This report shows the property owner whether this property operated at a surplus or deficit during the reporting period. What report is she preparing?
Yes, because RESPA applies to any residential loan transaction from a federally insured financial institution, including equity lines of credit.