(Total Views: 114)
Posted On: 05/07/2024 5:02:48 PM
Post# of 13634
Re: ThreeEmInEn #7693
Didn't miss anything yet illiterate eejit.
Unlike YOU I don't read snippets and ignore the context of the entire document....pay close attention IF POSSIBLE............
RPC 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
Now for Paragraph (b).............
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
Now here are the FOUR (4) exceptions where Mr Eilers can legally represent both SNPW and Solray..........
(1) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, after full disclosure and consultation, provided, however, that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation. When the lawyer represents multiple clients in a single matter, the consultation shall include an explanation of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved;
(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(3) the representation is not prohibited by law; and (it wont be IF the consultation is regarding an Merger or mutually beneficial business combination between SNPW and Solray)
(4) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
Yes, SNPW cannot consent to such representation hence the requirement of an EXPLANATION by said Lawyer for the common representation, and the citing the advantages and risks of same.
Simply put......SNPW (the public entity) cannot, on its own accord, grant permission for common representation WITHOUT said requirements being fulfilled, ie ITS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW ONCE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
Simmer on that ye arseclown!!!!!!!!
Unlike YOU I don't read snippets and ignore the context of the entire document....pay close attention IF POSSIBLE............
RPC 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
Now for Paragraph (b).............
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
Now here are the FOUR (4) exceptions where Mr Eilers can legally represent both SNPW and Solray..........
(1) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, after full disclosure and consultation, provided, however, that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation. When the lawyer represents multiple clients in a single matter, the consultation shall include an explanation of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved;
(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(3) the representation is not prohibited by law; and (it wont be IF the consultation is regarding an Merger or mutually beneficial business combination between SNPW and Solray)
(4) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
Yes, SNPW cannot consent to such representation hence the requirement of an EXPLANATION by said Lawyer for the common representation, and the citing the advantages and risks of same.
Simply put......SNPW (the public entity) cannot, on its own accord, grant permission for common representation WITHOUT said requirements being fulfilled, ie ITS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW ONCE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
Simmer on that ye arseclown!!!!!!!!
(0)
(0)
