Lawyer, conflict of interest.
Discussion
An interesting case I am involved in, that proves Mark Twain's quote that "truth is stranger than fiction", is gradually drawing to an inevitable conclusion.
The case mostly concerns a crooked lawyer, some of the incidents are scam receiverships, fraud and theft.
However, in the UK, would it be allowed for a practicing lawyer to represent his own company in court?
ie where the company concerned is nothing to do with legal services (actually the building trade), and the lawyer concerned was the only shareholder and only director of the company.
Hence, one person was sole shareholder, director and lawyer for a small limited company.
Unfortunately for this individual, he is no longer a shareholder or director - which gives rise to some strange issues, things like client privilege spring to mind.
Could this scenario happen in the UK? Because it has happened in New Zealand
Quick Google:
Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007
Rule 3: Conflict of interests
http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/code/rule-3-confli...
Solicitors' Code of Conduct 2007
Rule 3: Conflict of interests
http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/code/rule-3-confli...
...a duty to act in the best interests of your client...
When a solicitor is the client as well, and then the company who he claims to represent suddenly belongs to someone else (and this person in turn knows the solicitor is a grade one a
hole), how does the solicitor act in the best interests of his client?
Surely at the very least the solicitor should now withdraw - but he hasn't.
When a solicitor is the client as well, and then the company who he claims to represent suddenly belongs to someone else (and this person in turn knows the solicitor is a grade one a
hole), how does the solicitor act in the best interests of his client?Surely at the very least the solicitor should now withdraw - but he hasn't.
If the company now belongs to someone else, the company is free to terminate the solicitor's instructions.
Why are you concerned?
The scenario seems to be:
1. Solicitor owns company;
2. Company gets involved in a dispute;
3. Solicitor represents company - no conflict of interest here, although the duty to the court remains unchanged;
4. Solicitor somehow no longer owns company. You think solicitor should withdraw, but nothing suggests that his interests are aligned with the other party to the dispute and the company can make that decision of its own accord.
Why are you concerned?
The scenario seems to be:
1. Solicitor owns company;
2. Company gets involved in a dispute;
3. Solicitor represents company - no conflict of interest here, although the duty to the court remains unchanged;
4. Solicitor somehow no longer owns company. You think solicitor should withdraw, but nothing suggests that his interests are aligned with the other party to the dispute and the company can make that decision of its own accord.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff