Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court ruled in Edenfield v. Fane on what regulations states can impose on accountants' direct solicitation of clients and the ruling may impact attorney solicitation. The court held Florida's blanket ban on accountants' solicitation of clients to be a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The case's relevance for lawyers lies in the ruling's discussion of Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, which the court construes along with Edenfield to allow a prophylactic ban on in-person solicitation of especially vulnerable clients.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
A New York appellate court has held in D'Alession v Gilbergo that confidentiality can extend to protecting a client's name when doing so shields the client from criminal prosecution. Vincent Fiorito was killed by a hit-and-run driver whose identity an attorney later learned in confidential communication. After a lower court ruled that the public interest was best served by revealing the client's identity, the appellate court overturned the ruling on the grounds that confidentiality had greater public importance.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
The statute of limitations should be considered for assessing a legal malpractice claim, and there is not nationwide uniformity for such limits. Jurisdictions differ on when a statute of limitations begins to take effect, with some areas using an exhaustion test and others requiring a start of harmful results. Discovery of injury can also be presumed, as in Richardson v Denend.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: