Comments on: New Proposal Would Require Civil Defense Lawyers to Notify Plaintiffs of Settlement http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201 A legal ethics weblog and e-book of Prof. Dane S. Ciolino, Loyola New Orleans College of Law Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:16:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: EL Hightower http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201&cpage=1#comment-788 EL Hightower Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:08:05 +0000 http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201#comment-788 I must agree with Montel. I certainly understand the "good intentions", but it clearly violates the "bright-line" prohibition against direct contact with a represented party. At what point would this requirement arise? When you first start talking settlement? When you start putting numbers on the table? When opposing counsel rejects your offer? When opposing counsel makes an obsured demand / offer? When a written confirmation of the agreement is sent? When the check is sent? When the draft release is forwarded for review? What if opposing counsel rejects the offer? Do you advise the party of the offer? What if the opposing party contacts you directly and attempts to negotiate a different agreement? Do you negotiate with the party? Obviously not, but it seems this requirement just creates more problems for both sides. I must agree with Montel. I certainly understand the “good intentions”, but it clearly violates the “bright-line” prohibition against direct contact with a represented party. At what point would this requirement arise? When you first start talking settlement? When you start putting numbers on the table? When opposing counsel rejects your offer? When opposing counsel makes an obsured demand / offer? When a written confirmation of the agreement is sent? When the check is sent? When the draft release is forwarded for review?

What if opposing counsel rejects the offer? Do you advise the party of the offer? What if the opposing party contacts you directly and attempts to negotiate a different agreement? Do you negotiate with the party? Obviously not, but it seems this requirement just creates more problems for both sides.

]]> By: Montel http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201&cpage=1#comment-578 Montel Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:22:35 +0000 http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201#comment-578 I think it is a bad idea in that it violates the prohibition on contact with a represented party. Aren't there already rules governing conversion of settlement proceeds? I think it is a bad idea in that it violates the prohibition on contact with a represented party. Aren’t there already rules governing conversion of settlement proceeds?

]]> By: Robert Louque http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201&cpage=1#comment-341 Robert Louque Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:10:58 +0000 http://lalegalethics.org/?p=3201#comment-341 I think this is a fantastic idea. Not only will it prevent conversion of client funds, it will also help prevent a client's matter from being settled without the client's consent. I think this is a fantastic idea. Not only will it prevent conversion of client funds, it will also help prevent a client’s matter from being settled without the client’s consent.

]]>