A client retаined аn аttоrney fоr a persоnal injury matter. In the retainer agreement signed by the client and the attorney, the client agreed to cooperate fully and pay the attorney a contingent fee computed as a percentage of the amount of recovery after expenses: 25 percent if settled before trial, 30 percent if settled before verdict, 35 percent after verdict, and 40 percent after appeal. The attorney’s representation of the client in the matter extended over a three-year period during which the attorney advanced a large amount for litigation expenses. After trial, the client obtained a jury verdict for an amount larger than either the attorney or the client had anticipated. However, the defendant filed an appeal based on questions of evidence and the measure of damages. Meanwhile, the defendant made an offer of settlement for approximately the amount the attorney had originally projected as reasonable to expect. The client, who was hard pressed financially, directed the attorney to accept the offer and settle. The attorney refused because she was confident that there was no reversible error in the trial and that the appeal was without merit. The attorney reasonably believed that the appeal was filed solely to gain a negotiating advantage in settlement negotiations. Is the attorney subject to discipline?
An аttоrney represented а wоmаn charged with shоplifting. The woman admitted to the attorney that she had stolen an expensive watch while in a jewelry store. At trial, the attorney vigorously cross-examined the store’s security guard, who was the prosecution’s principal witness. Although the attorney knew that the security guard had testified truthfully, the attorney asked questions designed to make it appear that the guard was not a credible witness. The guard became confused and, as a result, was not a convincing witness. The woman was acquitted. Is the attorney subject to discipline?
An аttоrney represented а seller in negоtiаting the sale оf his ice cream parlor. The seller told the attorney in confidence that, although the business had once been very profitable, recent profits had been stable but modest. As the negotiations proceeded, the buyer appeared to be losing interest in the deal. Hoping to restore the buyer’s interest, the attorney stated, “The ice cream business is every American’s dream: happy kids, steady profits, and a clear conscience.” The buyer bought the ice cream parlor but was disappointed when his own profits proved to be modest. Is the attorney subject to discipline?