Let ‘em think what they want.” His salary is critical to his damages claim. He tells his lawyer not to disclose his changed employment situation during mediation. What happens, however, when a client tells the lawyer not to disclose a material fact? The client testifies at his deposition that his full-time job pays $175,000 a year with benefits. Can I use the “B” word, bankruptcy? Yes, even if unlikely, so long as the lawyer honestly believes it’s an available option. The underlying rationale is that each side expects a certain amount of posturing. 06-439, COPRAC concludes that statements about negotiation goals or willingness to compromise, as well as mere “puffery,” are not false statements of material fact. Permissible puffery, according to COPRAC. Another easy case.īut what about “bottom lines”-that aren’t? “My client won’t settle for less than $640,000,” when I know my client will take half that amount to be done with the case? The mediator will use my information to convey my $750,000 demand to the other side. I can’t say my client’s earning $150,000 a year, when she’s been unemployed, now has a part-time job and earns $27,000. I can’t claim I have a piece of evidence, to mislead the other side, when I know I don’t. So COPRAC’s guidance helps it even provides examples of permissible and unethical conduct.īottom line: no false statement of material fact, no matter how lofty the goal. But California has no Rule 4.1 counterpart. States adopting some form of the ABA Model Rules- i.e., the other 49 and the District of Columbia-have Model Rule 4.1 for guidance: no false statement of material fact no failure to disclose a material fact necessary to avoid assisting a client’s criminal or fraudulent act, unless the confidentiality rule prohibits disclosure. In February 2014, the State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) issued the latest version of interim opinion 12-0007: when can a lawyer ethically bluff, puff, even lie in negotiation to advance a client’s goals?

What could those negotiators have learned from our ethics guidance on negotiation? What can we learn from those negotiations? News accounts tell us that both negotiations were difficult, acrimonious at times to the point of name-calling. Iran and the United States and other major powers completed a nuclear accord. Greece reached a deal with its European creditors. We just witnessed the conclusion of two protracted negotiations. Information on Different Areas of the LawĮthics in Brief is designed to present ethical issues that practitioners might well face on a daily basis. It is a service of the Legal Ethics Committee of the San Diego County Bar Association for SDCBA members.

Liar&#39;s poker rules

Liar's poker rules