In the past we have treated Mike Ross as a lawyer, but only when Harvey was supervising him, because when an attorney supervises a non-attorney the non-attorney's professional conduct violations are treated as the lawyer's professional conduct violations if the attorney had actual knowledge of the violations or if the violations occurred as a result of failing to adequately supervise the non-lawyer. Here, however, Mike is about to commit ethical violations that Harvey neither has actual knowledge of nor result from a failure to reasonably supervise him. Because Mike Ross is not a lawyer, then, the rules don't necessarily apply to him here. Therefore, there is no violation here. But just stretching the hypothetical, however, let's just entertain the idea that Mike was a lawyer. At the beginning of this episode we see Mike talking with Glinda, a state social worker. He threatens her, telling her that if she doesn't help him today, he is going to hire a private investigator to look into her background and make her life miserable. She then asks him what his name is and he lies, telling her he is Harvey Specter. With that lie, if Mike were a lawyer he would be violating 4.1 (a) for making a false statement to a third party when representing a client, and 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Violations of 1.7(a)(2)
"Because sometimes I do things that my clients don't like, and if their ex-wives are looking over my shoulder that's not really a problem, but when their ex-wives are also my managing partner, that hamstrings me, and if I'm gonna turn this loser into a winner I can't be hamstrung, I can't have that!"
- Harvey Specter
Throughout the episode, Harvey is worried that Jessica's interest in her former husband's case will hamstring Harvey and he won't have the freedom to do his job properly. This concern is exacerbated when Jessica decides to "stop staying out of it" and decides to join the case. Harvey and more likely Jessica are violating Rule 1.7(a)(2). The rule states that "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...(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer." Jessica took the case because she thought she knew her former husband well, and so she has a personal interest in the case. This creates a significant risk that her personal interest will materially limit and bias her husband's representation by Harvey, a fear Harvey has throughout the episode. Here, Harvey also has a personal interest because his boss' ex-husband is his client and he has a personal interest in staying on her good side while also winning the case. These conflicts of interests are violations of 1.7(a)(2).
Violation of 1.13
At one point in the episode, Jessica advises her former husband, Quentin Sans, the CEO of a drug company, to join the lawsuit against his company because he has ALS. The payout from settling with his company should allow him to keep the drug on the market so he can stay alive. Harvey tells her, "Jessica, we're lawyers for the company. We can't advise him to do that." And lo and behold, Harvey is right and Jessica is probably violating 1.13, as seen in comment 10 to that rule, which states that "care must be taken to assure that the individual understands that, when there is such adversity of interest, the lawyer for the organization cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual." That representation includes legal advice. Here, by telling Quentin he should join the lawsuit against his company, Jessica is giving legal advice and therefore providing legal representation for someone who isn't her client. Their client is the company and not Quentin. The advice is directly in conflict with their commitment to advocate for the interests of their client, the company, not Quentin. Though its hard to point the finger at any particular text in the rule, she is violating 1.13 when she gives him advice that is adverse to the representation of the client, which here is the company.
No comments:
Post a Comment