8 Likes
“Even though we hired this repugnant individual to be a flight attendant as well as the repugnant attorney to defend us, we still insist that we have no responsibility in this matter.”
8 Likes
In what crazy world is it a conflict of interest for the people you’ve hired on staff to literally advocate for you? What’s next: we have to hire outside accountants, because it would be a conflict of interest for our in-house accountants prepare our tax returns?
“Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company”
Would the fact that it was the insurer’s lawyer still be a factor for an outfit of AA’s size?
My(layman’s, and admittedly somewhat hazy) understanding was that, at least for smaller insured entities, if the potential damages are covered under the policy the insurer typically has the right to mount the defense; and that it’s basically their lawyers(even if technically outside counsel, the insurer is very likely to be a more valued more repeat customer than the defendant is) and effectively their case; sometimes with awkward conflicts of interest.
It seems like a statement as carefully workshopped as a “walking back that filing that made us sound like we’re monsters who blame children for being insufficiently vigilant about our sexual predator staff” statement presumably is probably didn’t include “retained with our insurance company” rather than just “our outside legal counsel” without someone thinking it was relevant and worth including; but I have no idea how much, or how little, being a relatively large customer affects the question of control over a case between the insurer and insured.
1 Like
Umm…maybe not to prepare tax returns, but public corporations are required to have annual audits performed by outside accountants. Because it would be a conflict of interest for the in house accountants to do it.
The attorney who is actually trying a case for a defendant or plaintiff in a civil trial owes a duty not just to their client, but also to the court. If their client is also their boss, that creates a conflict of interest. I know many states actually prohibit in house counsel from appearing as the attorney of record in any litigation involving their employer. That’s definitely true in New Jersey, where I live. That doesn’t mean they can’t be involved in the case, but there has to be an outside attorney as the attorney of record. Even where it’s not prohibited, it’s a bad idea. It’s essentially the company representing itself pro se.
5 Likes
Thanks for the very useful corrective!
2 Likes
Yes, but doesn’t every attorney owe a duty to the court?
No. If you’re an in house attorney for some big corporation, you’re likely never involved in court proceedings. Most lawyers, actually, never see the inside of a courtroom. But the difference is not that some don’t owe a duty to the court. The difference is who their boss is. If you are an attorney for an outside law firm, your boss is the partners, or the other partners, in your law firm. Your client is not your boss. Your client can’t make you unemployed with a word. Your client can’t promise you a promotion or a raise if you do what they want. Sure, they can dismiss you as their lawyer, but that’s not the same thing. You have other clients. Also, as an outside attorney, you can drop your client, something you definitely can’t do as an in house attorney.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
