BOALT: LEGAL PROFESSION
SECOND CLASS: CLIENT IDENTITY
JANUARY 14, 2014
FAQ’s
All Read
Online Talks
1.1, 1.2, 1.3
Optional
Outline LGL
§§ IV(A)-(E) & (H)-(I)
All Read
Rules
1.2(a); 1.13; 1.14
All Read
2.1
Trusts & Estates: Who is the Client
All Read; R-Z on call
2.2
Silicon Valley Start-Up
All Read: M-Q on call
2.3
Domestic Violence Lawyer
All Read: I-L on call
2.4
In-house corporate lawyer
All Read; D-H on call
2.5
Government Lawyer-Whistleblower
(Cindy Ossias)
All Read: A-C on call
2.6
Examples from the News and Case Law
All Read; no cold calls
FAQs
(Q 2.1)
(Q 2.2)
(Q 2.3)
(Q 2.4)
(Q 2.5)
When the client is an organization, who or what is the client?
Is client identity ever an issue when representing natural persons (i.e., human beings)?
Is the person who pays the legal fees always the client?
What happens if I have more than one client on a matter?
What happens if I represent someone who has insurance related to the matter?
QUESTIONS
(Q 2.1) When the client is an organization, who or what is the client?
Under the so-called entity theory of representation, when a lawyer forms an ACR with an organization (e.g.,
corporation or partnership), the client is the entity itself and not the employees or constituents of the entity. (MR
1.13) If the corporation’s attorneys were to undertake to represent any of those constituents, it would be
considered an additional representation and one that potentially conflicts with the representation of the
organization. Generally, the attorney for the entity will take efforts to ensure that her duty of loyalty is not
clouded by any peripheral representations of the entity’s constituents such as directors, officers, shareholders, etc.
1
Organizations can only act through the acts of the human beings who are the agents, employees, etc., of the
entity. Lawyers look to those people for the authorized instructions to carry out for the client. To determine
who properly speaks for the entity client, the lawyer looks to the organization’s rules of governance. Note that
this rule, 1.13, also governs client identity in the context of representing governmental organizations—a topic
of much confusion and controversy.
The entity representation theory seems straight forward, but complications arise. What happens if, for example, a
corporate officer trusts and shares confidences with the attorney and the attorney’s advice relates to the personal
interests of the officer? Has a new representation ensued? Is there a conflict between the attorney’s representation
of the entity and her representation of the officer? And what happens when there is confusion or a dispute over
who controls the organization? As the comments to MR 1.13 make clear, these issues often confound even careful
lawyers.
Another difficult issue relates to corporate affiliates. For example, if a lawyer represents a parent corporation,
does the attorney represent the subsidiaries? Would it be a conflict for that lawyer to represent a third party
against the subsidiary? That and related issues will be discussed in the unit on conflicts of interest.
Representation of government entities raises particularly difficult problems. If you are a lawyer employed by the
State of Indiana, is your client the agency you work for, the state itself, or even the people of Indiana? (See, MR
1.13, cmt. [7])
When analyzing legal ethics, the very first question often is who is the client? If you want to know the basics of
client identity, you should have a basic working knowledge of the law governing representation of (i) competent
human beings; (ii) less than fully competent human beings; (iii) publicly held corporations; (iv) smaller, nonpublic corporations; (v) partnerships; and (vi) government entities.
(Q 2.2) Is client identity ever an issue when representing natural persons (i.e., human beings)?
In the case of natural person clients, client identity can still be an issue, especially where a non-client is paying
the legal fees, or where the client is under a disability such as minority, mental illness, or conservatorship. MR
1.14 regulates the representation of clients under a disability.
(Q 2.3) Is the person who pays the legal fees always the client?
No! Many times a non-client is paying the fees. And there are three different provisions in the rules—in the
comments to 1.7, in 1.8, and in 5.4—that say that if the person paying the legal fees is not the client, you must not
treat such payors as the client. You must serve the best interests of the actual client and must not share confidences
with the non-client unless the client gives informed consent.
(Q 2.4) What happens if I have more than one client on a matter?
We will discuss this further in the classes on conflicts of interest, but the basic concepts are: (1) you would need the
two clients to consent to the joint representation if their positions conflict (and it may be a prudent idea to obtain
consent in all cases of joint representation); (2) you must serve the best interests of each client; and (3) you must
carefully consider how confidentiality and attorney client privilege are applied in joint representations.
(Q 2.5) What happens if I represent someone who has insurance related to the matter?
You should know that this is an important issue in the real world, even though we probably cannot explore it in
depth this semester. If you represent someone in a matter and they have insurance to cover the legal fees or to
indemnify the client for possible liability, there is a three-way relationship (insured; lawyer; insurer) that is
potentially cooperative and potentially antagonistic. In some states, the lawyer represents both as clients, in what is
called the “tri-partite” relationship. In other states, the lawyer represents only the insured.
2
2.1: Example: Trusts & Estates: Who is the Client
This example is based upon a hypothetical discussed in Thomas L. Shaffer, “The Legal Ethics of Radical
Individualism,” 65 Tex. L. Rev. 963 (1987). In that article, Professor Shaffer argues that the standard answer to the
question “Who is the client?” may sometimes be an ethical evasion. How would you define the client in The Case
of the Unwanted Will‖? Do you favor Shaffer’s approach? Assuming that the ethics rules do indeed assume a
radical individuality, is there anything to say for or against that assumption? We’ll start with the hypothetical and
move to Shaffer’s article.
*
*
*
*
*
A married couple, Miriam and Henry, visit Colleen O’Hara, a trusts and estates lawyer, to finalize and sign
a will that will leave their estate in equal shares to their three children. Miriam walks from the conference room to
the kitchen to get some coffee and bumps into O’Hara, who is busy pulling the final papers together.
“I bet it’ll feel good to get your will finalized,” said O’Hara.
“That will is mostly Henry’s idea, but I’ll be glad to get this signed,” said Miriam.
“What do you mean?”
“My niece, my late sister’s daughter, lived with us practically as our own child. I would have left her some
money. But, Henry feels so strongly about it.”
*
*
*
*
*
Thomas L. Shaffer:
Most of what American lawyers and law teachers call legal ethics is not ethics. Most of what is called legal
ethics is similar to rules made by administrative agencies. It is regulatory. Its appeal is not to conscience, but to
sanction. It seeks mandate rather than insight. I argue here that what remains and appropriately is called ethics has
been distorted by the weaker side of an old issue in academic moral philosophy. This "weaker side" rests on two
doctrines: first, that fact and value are separate; and second, that the moral agent acts alone; as W.H. Auden put it,
each of us is alone on a moral planet tamed by terror. The influence of this philosophical position deprives legal
ethics of truthfulness and of depth. As a principal example of the distortion, I use the case of lawyers employed by
and for families, and by and for associations that use the metaphor of family to describe themselves.
I.
The Ethical Context
Ethics properly defined is thinking about morals. It is an intellectual activity and an appropriate academic
discipline, but it is valid only to the extent that it truthfully describes what is going on. Those in contemporary
ethics who concentrate on the importance of the truthful account argue first that fact and value are not separate—
that stating the facts is, as Iris Murdoch put it, a moral act, a moral skill, and a moral art; and second, that organic
communities of persons are prior in life and in culture to individuals—in other words, that the moral agent is not
alone.
In the practice of estate planning, for example, the facts that are available for moral description are death
and property: property seen in the context of mortality, death seen in the context of owning things.
*
*
*
*
*
3
This principled analysis of The Case of the Unwanted Will fails because of what is prior to analysis: the
moral art of description. The failure is sad and, I think, corrupting. It is corrupting, first, because it rests on an
untruthful account of what is going on. What is present in the law office is a family, and this one-lawyer-for-eachperson way of first seeing a moral quandary in this situation and then resolving the quandary with the ethics of
autonomy (the ethics of aloneness) leaves the family out of the account. The analysis looks on [Miriam] as a
collection of interests and rights that begin and end in radical individuality. Her affiliation with her husband, and
with the children they have made and reared, is seen as a product of individuality(!), of contract and consent, of
promises and the keeping of promises—all the consensual connections that lonely individuals use when they want
circumstantial harmony. The employment of the lawyer is a result, then, of the links, the promises, the contract, the
consent, and the need for circumstantial harmony. The family in the office is there only as the product of promise
and consent. It is relevant to the legal business at hand only because the (radical) individuals, each in momentary
and circumstantial harmony with one another, want it to be. The promise and the consent create the family.
This description is offered by the legal ethics of radical individualism. It is sad, corrupting, and untruthful.
An alternative argument is that the family created the promises, the contract, the consent, and the circumstantial
harmony—not the other way around. The family is not the harmony; it is where the harmony (and disharmony)
comes from. A truthful description of The Case of the Unwanted Will is that the lawyer's employer is a family. I
suspect that that proposition will sound unusual in legal ethics, but my argument would be ordinary in other
contexts. It treats, sees, and describes the family the way families are treated, seen, and described in the stories we
tell, in the television commercials we watch, in the comics, and in our religious tradition. In these ordinary ways of
accounting to ourselves for ourselves, it is the family that causes individuals to make the promises that begin,
develop, and continue families. The family causes people to seek human harmonies and, consequently, to create
more families, as well as associations such as businesses, clubs, and professions, that account for themselves with
family metaphors.
Organic communities such as families are prior to individuals. The lawyer in The Case of the Unwanted
Will, for example, did not err in turning his attention to [Miriam], in [Henry’s] absence. (Nor would it have been a
mistake to turn his attention to [Henry], in [Miriam’s] absence; if evenhandedness is important, it would have been
more evenhanded to talk privately with each of them.) The deep things to be found out about [them], in particular
the deep things involved in their will making, are family things. Inquiring into deep family things is not only
tolerated, but it is required by common representation, because the client is the family. Any other description is
incomplete and, thus, untruthful and corrupting. If an adequate account of what is going on in the family (to the
extent that it has to do with their will making) requires talking to either or both parents alone, then talking to them
alone is appropriate. If the family is well represented, it (that is, each person in it) will learn how to take [Miriam’s]
purposes into account, because [Miriam] is in the family.
2.2: Example: Silicon Valley Start-Up
A venture capitalist that your firm has often represented sends your firm a new client. It’s a small, fiveshareholder technology corporation that wants to reincorporate itself in Delaware, to draft a series of employment
agreements for the founders (i.e., the five shareholders), and to handle an influx of financing from a different set of
venture capitalists (i.e., a second round financing). The second round VCs will invest $15 million and will want to
have the rights to manage the business as they see fit. Each founder needs an employee agreement that governs
their compensation, stock ownership rights, and what will happen to those shares if the employee leaves the
company voluntarily or involuntarily. You know that corporate start-ups cannot afford to have large shareholders
leave the company and keep their shares. You also know that the founders have sunk years of their lives into the
start-up and don’t want to be tossed out on the street by the new VCs.
One of the founders sends you this email message:
4
I’ve seen the latest drafts of the Employment Agreements. Can you break it down for me? What do I get if I
leave the company on my own accord? What do I get if I get fired over my objection?
How should you respond?
2.3: Example: Domestic Violence Lawyer
You work at a non-profit legal clinic for victims of domestic violence (the Domestic Abuse Advocates). It’s
the second Tuesday of the month, so you are at a table at a local community center along with two associates of
local law firms, fielding drop-in questions. One woman, a former client, has brought her friend, Doris, to talk to
you. This is the third time that Doris has made a drop-in visit. With each prior visit, Doris has come closer and
closer to initiating a protective order proceeding against her husband, but her social and religious beliefs make her
reluctant to do so. Tonight she has questions about what the timetable for litigation is generally like, whether the
local judges are friendly or mean, and whether court proceedings are open to the public.
Another visitor, Maria, has questions because she has been accused of battering her domestic partner, the
woman she has been living with for many years. Another visitor, Susan, comes with her mother and has questions
about how to divorce her abusive husband. Susan is worried about the tax and financial implications of divorce.
Be prepared to speak to Doris, Maria and Susan about the attorney-client relationship issues raised by these
encounters.
2.4: In-House Corporate Lawyer (Prior Exam Question)
You are General Counsel at The Parts Supply, an automotive and trucking parts company. You often meet
with Mike Morris, the Midwest Regional Vice President, who in addition to running legal issues by you, chats with
you about everything from the weather, the local schools, and Hoosier basketball. In June 2002, Morris walked into
your office, slumped down in a chair and nervously lit up a cigarette—a habit you’d thought he’d kicked. He asked
if taking a government purchaser out on hunting trips would be considered commercial bribery. You said that
anything of value can be a bribe. He asked about the jail time a briber might serve. You told him that bribery can
cost five years in prison. He asked if it mattered that he began his hunting trips with the purchaser when they were
in high school together. You told Morris you couldn’t give good advice if he dripped out the facts one by one. You
asked Morris to trust you with the whole story. Here’s what he said.
“Jason Spencer, my old high school buddy, works for the City and County of St. Louis purchasing car and
truck parts for the various municipal fleets. I took Spencer on several hunting trips over the past year. My treat.
Spencer never paid. Sometimes we just drove out to the country, but sometimes we’d stay at upscale hunting or
fishing lodges.
“Back in May, Spencer signed a policy allowing the County to purchase parts that aren’t certified by the
National Automotive Parts Laboratory. NAPL is a national testing agency, and most everyone requires NAPL
certified parts. Spencer also signed a technical specification permitting County trucks to be outfitted with smaller,
less powerful brake assemblies. I had lobbied Spencer for both changes, because The Parts Supply carries the noncertified, smaller brake assemblies. They are cheaper for the County, and we are glad to sell them. Spencer and I
briefly discussed the changes during one of our hunting trips.
“In late May, the County published a Request For Bids on a large contract for a variety of parts, including
quite a few brake assemblies. Because prices on the other parts are largely uniform, The Parts Supply used its price
advantage with the non-certified parts to make a great bid. We won the Request. We already shipped some parts,
and will make additional deliveries over the next two years.
5
“Just before the final bids were submitted, the manufacturer of the brake assemblies called about some
safety concerns. Ten brake failures have been reported nationwide. He said that no recall was currently
contemplated because it seemed that the assemblies had failed only when they were installed on trucks that were
too large for the parts. He wanted me to report any potential problems.
“Well, bad things are happening. A County truck plowed through a storefront last week. We don’t yet
know what caused the accident, but I think his truck had the small brake assembly. I just heard one hour ago that
another County truck crashed at the bottom of a downgrade. I don’t want to call Spencer or the manufacturer and
highlight the problem.
“Yesterday, I saw one of my competitors at a hunting goods store. He asked me, ‘Hey, Morris, are you
buying more goodies for your pal, Spencer?’ That’s why I’m talking to you. Look, Spencer’s cost-saving policies
are perfectly justified. But if people find out about what’s happened, everyone will think the worst and I’m going to
jail for five years—or worse if people are killed.”
You told Morris that you need to begin a thorough investigation and that you need to talk to others at the
company. Morris screamed at you. He said that you can’t tell anyone about the facts. He said that you are his
attorney, and that he is trusting you.
Is there an attorney-client relationship between you and Morris? What consequences flow from this
determination?
2.5: Government Lawyer-Whistleblower (Cindy Ossias)
Whistle-Blower Tells Panel of Her Outrage
Probe: Department of Insurance attorney testifies she recommended $119 million in fines against State Farm and
was appalled at $2-million settlement.
June 27, 2000|JENIFER WARREN | TIMES STAFF WRITER
SACRAMENTO — When the phone call finally came, Cindy Ossias was ready. Her mounting frustration over
insurance company settlements had reached critical mass. It was time to talk.
So it was that Ossias, a seasoned lawyer with the state Department of Insurance, became a whistle-blower, launching
investigations into California's biggest political corruption scandal in years.
It is not a role she sought. But on Monday, during four grueling hours of testimony before the state Assembly
committee investigating Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, it is one she played with poise.
"I'm glad I did it," Ossias, 49, said during a break in the sometimes hostile questioning. "I think it was worthwhile-no matter what happens next."
For now, what happens next is an uncomfortable mystery for Ossias (pronounced oh-SIGH-us). Last week, the
department placed her on paid administrative leave until July 21, ordering her to be available by phone except
during lunch hour--a status she jokingly called "house arrest."
After that, she's not sure what to expect. By leaking sensitive Department of Insurance documents to the Assembly
Insurance Committee, she has put her job--and possibly her license to practice law--at risk.
6
"I'm not in denial," she said, acknowledging the grim possibilities. "I'm just trusting that I'll land on my feet."
Recommended Fines Scrapped
Documents leaked by Ossias are central to the widening scandal engulfing Quackenbush, who is under scrutiny for
his settlements with major insurance companies in lieu of fines for Northridge earthquake claims violations.
The documents included audits detailing such violations by State Farm, Allstate and 20th Century and also staffrecommended fines against those companies. Quackenbush allowed the companies to contribute far smaller amounts
to private foundations he created.
Testifying under immunity from criminal prosecution, Ossias said she was "appalled" when she learned that her
recommended fine of about $119 million against State Farm had been scrapped in favor of the alternative settlement
scheme, under which the company was assessed just $2 million--none of which went to quake victims.
"I was truly outraged and with each settlement I saw, I was more outraged," she told the committee. Later,
addressing reporters in a Capitol hallway, she added: "I knew what we could have gotten [for earthquake victims],
and I felt they should know they got shortchanged."
Despite her frustration, Ossias figured she would just ignore her angst and go on doing her job. But then came a call
from Paul Donahue, a former consultant to the Assembly Insurance Committee.
"He knew I had done some earthquake work, so he asked me if I knew anything about the Northridge settlements,"
Ossias recalled. Her response? "I have a lot to tell you."
In the days that followed, Ossias told the committee, she went through "an internal struggle" as she agonized over
which documents to leak. She was fearful of violating attorney-client privileges and she was concerned about
jeopardizing her job.
But more than anything, she wanted the truth to come out: "I realized [Donahue] was somebody who could get these
documents to the right people, get them made public," she said outside the hearing room.
'A True Watchdog'
A 10-year veteran of the Insurance Department, Ossias said she has become known as the "catastrophe queen" in the
legal division because of her work on the Oakland Hills fire, which burned 3,000 houses in 1991, and the 1994
Northridge earthquake.
She lives with her cat, Bob, and dog, Jackie O, in San Francisco, and spends her spare time playing piano and
singing in an a cappella group.
One homeowner who got to know Ossias after the Oakland Hills fire called her "a true watchdog," noting that she
encouraged residents to file complaints with the department.
"She was our point person after the fire," said Betty Ann Bruno, who lost her home and battled State Farm for an
equitable settlement for four years. "If we had complaints about insurance companies, which most of us did, she
would help us in any way she could."
Monday's hearing was something of a bipolar experience for Ossias. The morning was positively pleasant, with
Democrats on the committee asking carefully scripted, friendly questions of their star witness.
7
After lunch, however, it was the Republicans' turn. Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), while noting
that her whistle-blower actions were "in the highest tradition of public service," lectured Ossias for possibly
breaking the law by leaking confidential documents. By so doing, McClintock charged, she "undermines the moral
authority of the Legislature to sit in judgment of the commissioner."
*
*
*
*
*
Bill Proposes Protections for State Lawyers
California and the West
Legislature: A staffer in Quackenbush's insurance department who reported wrongdoing faced dismissal and the loss
of her license.
February 22, 2001|VIRGINIA ELLIS | TIMES STAFF WRITER
SACRAMENTO — The plight of a whistle-blower who risked her law license by exposing misdeeds at the
Department of Insurance prompted legislation Wednesday to protect government attorneys who report wrongdoing
Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said he was introducing the measure, AB 363, to fulfill a
commitment to push for reforms that would help avoid a repeat of the scandal that involved former Insurance
Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush and forced him from office last July.
Steinberg, who handled much of the questioning during legislative hearings into Quackenbush's activities, said he
learned firsthand from that investigation of the risks that government attorneys take in reporting wrongdoing.
He said insurance department lawyer Cindy Ossias jeopardized both her job and her right to practice law when she
leaked documents to the Assembly Insurance Committee about secret settlements that Quackenbush had reached
with insurance companies after the Northridge earthquake. The settlements allowed the companies to donate to
private foundations created by Quackenbush rather than face heavy fines for mishandling claims.
When her role in the investigation became public, Quackenbush put Ossias on administrative leave and took steps to
fire her. The State Bar of California later investigated to determine if she had violated the attorney-client privilege
that requires lawyers to keep confidential information divulged by clients.
"My loyalties were at war last year--loyalty to my boss, loyalty to the agency, loyalty to the public and loyalty to the
rules of professional conduct," Ossias said.
She was eventually reinstated by Quackenbush's successor, Clark Kelso, and exonerated by the bar, which licenses
and disciplines lawyers in California.
But Steinberg said the bar specifically limited its decision to Ossias' case so it would not become precedent for other
government lawyers in similar circumstances.
He said his bill would remedy that by protecting all government lawyers in California, including those who work for
state and federal agencies, from losing their jobs or their bar licenses when they expose wrongdoing.
"We want to protect attorneys who act in the public interest and we want to create incentives for them to come
forward when they see wrongdoing," Steinberg said.
8
Jeffrey Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said he expects the measure
will be copied by other states if it is passed by the Legislature. Ruch's group is a national organization created to
protect government employees who report environmental abuse.
"Almost no states make any distinction between a government lawyer and a private lawyer," he said. "Attorneys are
supposed to take their secrets to the grave. You see wrongdoing and the only recourse is to resign and forever keep
silent."
2.6: Examples from the News and Case Law
(A)
News accounts have covered the criminal prosecution of George Zimmerman for the homicide of Trayvon
Martin. Below are excerpts from the state’s prosecutor’s press conference following the initiation of the criminal
proceedings against Zimmerman.
ANGELA COREY, FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY: Good evening, everyone. I am Angela Corey, the
special prosecutor for the Trayvon Martin case.
Just moments ago, we spoke by phone with Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin. It was less than three weeks
ago that we told those sweet parents that we would get answers to all of their questions no matter where our
quest for the truth led us.
When they appointed us to this case less than three weeks ago, I want you to know that these two fine
prosecutors, despite all that is on their plate already, handling all of the homicides in the Fourth Judicial
Circuit, supervising the other young lawyers who also handle homicides, they willingly took this case on
and said, we will lead this effort to seek justice for Trayvon.
The Supreme Court has defined our role on numerous occasions as prosecutors that we are not only
ministers of justice; we are seekers of the truth. And we stay true to that mission. Again, we prosecute on
facts and the laws of the great and sovereign state of Florida, and that's the way it will be in this case.
We thank all of the people across this country who have sent positive energy and prayers our way. We ask
you to continue to pray for Trayvon's family, as well as for our prosecution team.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
COREY: I am going to be quite honest with you. And I have some people who have lived through our
justice system here. And they are among the finest people in Jacksonville, Florida. They represent but a
small sample of the people who know that those of us in law enforcement are committed to justice for
every race, every gender, every person of any persuasion whatsoever.
They are our victims. We only know one category as prosecutors, and that's a V. It is not a B, it is not
a W, it is not an H. It is V for victim. That's who we work tirelessly for. And that's all we know, is
justice for our victims. And we still have to maintain the constitutional rights. Remember our role,
ministers of justice. [emphasis added]
QUESTION: Can you shed any more light on (OFF-MIKE)
COREY: I think that after meeting with Trayvon's parents that first Monday night after we got
appointed in this case -- Bernie was there, John was there, our prosecution team was there. The first
thing we did was pray with them. We opened our meeting in prayer.
9
Mr. Crump and Mr. Parks were there. We did not promise them anything. In fact, we specifically
talked about if criminal charges do not come out of this, what can we help you do to make sure your
son's death is not in vain?
And they were very kind and very receptive to that. And as I stated, Mr. de la Rionda has been in
touch with Mr. Crump and with Ms. Fulton and Mr. Martin since we took over this case. And we
intend to stay in touch with them. [emphasis added]
(B)
One of the many collapses of alleged Ponzi schemes was Stanford Financial, which was represented by the
Proskauer firm. The SEC took testimony under oath from one of Stanford Financial’s officers, who was
accompanied at the deposition by a lawyer from Proskauer. At the start of the deposition, the SEC asked on the
record if the lawyer represented the witness, and this is what the lawyer said:
"I represent her insofar as she is an officer or director of one of the Stanford affiliated companies."
(C)
The general counsel of PSU was Cynthia Baldwin, and when certain employees of PSU gave grand jury
testimony and were asked if they were represented by counsel. Here’s a news account of what transpired. 1
Three top Penn State University administrators were each posed a question from prosecutors when they
testified separately last year before the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky:
Do you have counsel with you today?
Then-university president Graham B. Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, and vice president Gary
Schultz each offered the same answer: Yes, Cynthia Baldwin, the university’s general counsel.
But Baldwin has since maintained that she represented none of them and instead sat in on the proceedings
on behalf of the university.
(D)
Under the terms of a technology license, the licensee assumed all control over prosecution of patents on the
technology. In prosecuting the patents, the licensee’s lawyers had numerous conversations with the inventors and
other personnel of the licensor. Later, when an ownership dispute arose between the licensor, the inventors, and the
licensees, all three asserted that they were represented by the same lawyer (who thought she represented only the
licensee).
(E)
Artika R. Tyner, Professor at St. Thomas, has written an article, “Planting People, Growing Justice: The
Three Pillars of New Social Justice Lawyering,”2 the abstract of which is:
This article explores the tools that lawyers can employ to build and sustain social change. These tools add a
new dimension to scholarly research in the field by focusing on the role of lawyers as leaders as they seek
to influence processes of social change, transform systems, and empower others to lead. This Article
draws upon principles of social justice lawyering, which acknowledge that lawyers have a fiduciary
duty to create equal justice under the law. It combines these frameworks with leadership theoretical
perspectives since there is a dearth of research available on the role of lawyers as leaders in the context of
social change. Another framework that informs this new type of lawyering is public policy advocacy. The
combination of social justice lawyering practices, leadership skills, and public policy advocacy is
referenced in this Article as the three pillars of “new social justice lawyering.” [emphasis added]
1
http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/2012/07/27/penn-state-counsels-role-in-sandusky-inquiry-called-intoquestion/arb9xg2/ questioned.html)( July 27, 2012 )(last visited January 5, 2014)
2
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2302653
10