• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/16

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Med. Mal. suit, told prospective clients "probably no case but I'll check." Then didn't even look as hospital records. Malpractice.
Togstad


O.U.I. case, unreasonable fee even though client had eyes open.
Fordham
Case where lawyer's materials from internal investigation of alleged bribery of foreign officials held to be protected from discovery by gov. investigatory agency. All communications from e'ees made with knowledge that ____ were protected.
Upjohn
Cases and holdings about whether personal documents are protected under the 5th Am.
Fisher and Hubbell
Ponzi scheme--lawyers should have told?
O.P.M. case
Case--don't represent both sides in real estate transaction.
Callahan

Stranger rule cases: Real estate development co. with client;


Baseball card co. refusing to honor oral promise to 3% equity.

Mershon and Passante

Restaurant/family split, former clients case
Brennans
Case holding that if attorney's involvement was significantly greater than it was, equity may call for the firm to be disqualified even though it had set up the "Chinese wall." Balancing test.
Nemours
Joint representation of the organization and itsdirectors or officers in a derivative suit is usually improper unless the claimlacks merit on its face. Cf. [case?]
Yablonski
EPA lawyers concealed from ct. the fact that on-scene coordinator didn't have qualifying degrees. (Case?)
Schaffer
Crim. def. attorney approved for refusing to allow client to testify that he saw something metallic.
Nix
[Case] test: : 1) attorney’s strategy was unreasonable, and 2) the attorney’s choice was prejudicial (reasonably likely to have changed the outcome. In this case, not unreasonable to choose not to present character evidence or psychological expert testimony.
Strickland
Which e’ees of a def. org. are non-contactable?

[Case and holding]

Messing
[Case] : Computer program that tailors to clients, selectingand modifying forms, violates the law.
Parsons
[Case]: Must report other lawyer's professional misconduct if it reflects on their suitability to practice law, even if client asks you not to report it, unlessthe information itself was communicated in confidence and is thereforeprotected by the attorney-client privilege.
Himmel