A lay person has no duty to ferret out possible conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, and state his lack of consent thereto. On the contrary, the obligation to identify and disclose all potential conflicts rests squarely on counsel.
Law firms commonly attempt to discharge this duty by performing what is commonly referred to as a “conflicts check.” There is no bright line test for what must be done in order to perform an adequate check. At a minimum, however, the procedure will usually involve running a computer search before accepting a representation, employing available technology, to ascertain whether the firm represents – or previously represented – any clients who may have an interest adverse to the prospective client in the new matter. Many firms will also circulate a document – commonly referred to as a “new case memorandum” – to all firm employees.
Courts have sometimes criticized law firms for failing to adopt adequate conflict avoidance procedures. Even when such measures are undertaken in good faith, however, they will not disclose every possible conflict. By way of example, changes in a client’s mode of internal operation that are unknown to the lawyer can create a conflict potential that a firm’s conflict avoidance mechanisms may be unable to diagnose.
A lay person has no duty to ferret out possible conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, and state his lack of consent thereto. On the contrary, the obligation to identify and disclose all potential conflicts rests squarely on counsel.
Law firms commonly attempt to discharge this duty by performing what is commonly referred to as a “conflicts check.” There is no bright line test for what must be done in order to perform an adequate check. At a minimum, however, the procedure will usually involve running a computer search before accepting a representation, employing available technology, to ascertain whether the firm represents – or previously represented – any clients who may have an interest adverse to the prospective client in the new matter. Many firms will also circulate a document – commonly referred to as a “new case memorandum” – to all firm employees.
Courts have sometimes criticized law firms for failing to adopt adequate conflict avoidance procedures. Even when such measures are undertaken in good faith, however, they will not disclose every possible conflict. By way of example, changes in a client’s mode of internal operation that are unknown to the lawyer can create a conflict potential that a firm’s conflict avoidance mechanisms may be unable to diagnose.
A lay person has no duty to ferret out possible conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, and state his lack of consent thereto. On the contrary, the obligation to identify and disclose all potential conflicts rests squarely on counsel.
Law firms commonly attempt to discharge this duty by performing what is commonly referred to as a “conflicts check.” There is no bright line test for what must be done in order to perform an adequate check. At a minimum, however, the procedure will usually involve running a computer search before accepting a representation, employing available technology, to ascertain whether the firm represents – or previously represented – any clients who may have an interest adverse to the prospective client in the new matter. Many firms will also circulate a document – commonly referred to as a “new case memorandum” – to all firm employees.
Courts have sometimes criticized law firms for failing to adopt adequate conflict avoidance procedures. Even when such measures are undertaken in good faith, however, they will not disclose every possible conflict. By way of example, changes in a client’s mode of internal operation that are unknown to the lawyer can create a conflict potential that a firm’s conflict avoidance mechanisms may be unable to diagnose.
H.P.Dubey
A lay person has no duty to ferret out possible conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, and state his lack of consent thereto. On the contrary, the obligation to identify and disclose all potential conflicts rests squarely on counsel.
Law firms commonly attempt to discharge this duty by performing what is commonly referred to as a “conflicts check.” There is no bright line test for what must be done in order to perform an adequate check. At a minimum, however, the procedure will usually involve running a computer search before accepting a representation, employing available technology, to ascertain whether the firm represents – or previously represented – any clients who may have an interest adverse to the prospective client in the new matter. Many firms will also circulate a document – commonly referred to as a “new case memorandum” – to all firm employees.
Courts have sometimes criticized law firms for failing to adopt adequate conflict avoidance procedures. Even when such measures are undertaken in good faith, however, they will not disclose every possible conflict. By way of example, changes in a client’s mode of internal operation that are unknown to the lawyer can create a conflict potential that a firm’s conflict avoidance mechanisms may be unable to diagnose.
H.P.Dubey
A lay person has no duty to ferret out possible conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, and state his lack of consent thereto. On the contrary, the obligation to identify and disclose all potential conflicts rests squarely on counsel.
Law firms commonly attempt to discharge this duty by performing what is commonly referred to as a “conflicts check.” There is no bright line test for what must be done in order to perform an adequate check. At a minimum, however, the procedure will usually involve running a computer search before accepting a representation, employing available technology, to ascertain whether the firm represents – or previously represented – any clients who may have an interest adverse to the prospective client in the new matter. Many firms will also circulate a document – commonly referred to as a “new case memorandum” – to all firm employees.
Courts have sometimes criticized law firms for failing to adopt adequate conflict avoidance procedures. Even when such measures are undertaken in good faith, however, they will not disclose every possible conflict. By way of example, changes in a client’s mode of internal operation that are unknown to the lawyer can create a conflict potential that a firm’s conflict avoidance mechanisms may be unable to diagnose.
H.P.Dubey
A lay person has no duty to ferret out possible conflicts of interest, or other ethical misconduct, and state his lack of consent thereto. On the contrary, the obligation to identify and disclose all potential conflicts rests squarely on counsel.
Law firms commonly attempt to discharge this duty by performing what is commonly referred to as a “conflicts check.” There is no bright line test for what must be done in order to perform an adequate check. At a minimum, however, the procedure will usually involve running a computer search before accepting a representation, employing available technology, to ascertain whether the firm represents – or previously represented – any clients who may have an interest adverse to the prospective client in the new matter. Many firms will also circulate a document – commonly referred to as a “new case memorandum” – to all firm employees.
Courts have sometimes criticized law firms for failing to adopt adequate conflict avoidance procedures. Even when such measures are undertaken in good faith, however, they will not disclose every possible conflict. By way of example, changes in a client’s mode of internal operation that are unknown to the lawyer can create a conflict potential that a firm’s conflict avoidance mechanisms may be unable to diagnose.