California legal authorities – the state’s Supreme Court, State Bar and other regulators – harbor no ambiguity when it comes to making determinations concerning whose interests are paramount in any attorney-client interaction.
What do you think of when you hear the term “gluttony?” Many people might readily conjure up an image of a person who just can’t leave the buffet. Gluttony might similarly serve as an apt descriptor for an individual whose appetite for accumulation, overindulgence or sheer possession in virtually any context seemingly knows no bounds.
A commentator notes in a recently penned law journal article a widely held misconception concerning legal malpractice.
The fingerprinting of California lawyers has long been a statutorily imposed requirement.
A key California rule governing attorneys requires all practicing lawyers across the state to inform clients in writing if they don’t carry liability insurance.
Every occupational group has inherent stresses and pressures that can mar individuals’ work quality and compromise their delivery of services to third parties who depend on them.
The saying, “Pride comes before a fall” underscores that arrogance or a haughty nature often spurs conduct that can be injurious and self-defeating. Indeed, pride can easily cloud wise decision making and lead to adverse outcomes for individuals who can’t shelve their vanity.
Clients retaining attorneys to promote their rights in legal matters justifiably assume that their legal counsel will always act competently.
Two attorney authors who concentrate on ethics in the legal industry duly note that many practitioners become ensnared in client-linked difficulties when they fail to routinely focus on and remain sharp in their representation.
Today’s blog headline could be easily rephrased as a question.