Comments on: More powerful than a locomotive. Less powerful than a lawyer?

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:14:49 +0000

Wow – if Elliot’s post is correct, then the case seems fairly straight forward and clearly in the right.

“Kleiman is a real piece of work.”

I’ll second that one.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:00:25 +0000

The relevant provision of the New York Code of Professional responsibility is:

DR 5-104 [1200.23] Transactions Between Lawyer and Client.
A. A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, unless:
1. The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;
2. The lawyer advises the client to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; and
3. The client consents in writing, after full disclosure, to the terms of the transaction and to the lawyer’s inherent conflict of interest in the transaction.
B. Prior to conclusion of all aspects of the matter giving rise to employment, a lawyer shall not negotiate or enter into any arrangement or understanding:
1. With a client or a prospective client by which the lawyer acquires an interest in literary or media rights with respect to the subject matter of the employment or proposed employment.
2. With any person by which the lawyer transfers or assigns any interest in literary or media rights with respect to the subject matter of employment by a client or prospective client.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:44:25 +0000

Yeah, Elliot’s point makes sense: legalese can be made hard to understand, so who would you ask for help to understand it? Your lawyer! If the lawyer is also the one who made the contract, I think I could see a SLIGHT conflict of interest, there…

By: ben tillman

ben tillman — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:45:43 +0000

Well said, Elliot.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:12:08 +0000

Generally speaking, it is no defense to say that you didn’t read a contract– if you signed it, you agreed to it.

But there are special ethical rules when a lawyer signs a contract with his own client. If the contract is too one-sided, it may be set aside, not because the client didn’t read it, but because it is unethical for a lawyer to take advantage of a client.

By: Jeff Hall

Jeff Hall — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:32:00 +0000

A construction worker signed a contract a few weeks after getting hit on the back of the head by a subway train. The construction worker claims that he never read the contract. Oh, and the contract was written by his lawyer, and it assigns half of his most important asset over to the lawyer for what seems like minimal consideration.

It’s at least plausible that there was no meeting of the minds here.

By: LisaMarie

LisaMarie — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:52:39 +0000

Dumb question: what’s the status of his claim if the contract both took advantage of him and he did not read it before signing (don’t know squat about contract law)? I’m curious because some people who were complaining about the whole subprime lending situation claimed that a contract is void if you don’t make sure the other party understands everything in it before they sign, even if you don’t lie or mislead them. Is there really such a duty?

By: Ryan Frank

Ryan Frank — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:44:21 +0000

Hrmm… this is a trickey one, but Kleiman is a real piece of work. She apparently tried to hit up an elementary school for ‘speaking fees’ where Autrey was set to appear (Autrey claims that Kleiman made the demands without his knowledge, and Kleiman does not appear to dispute this)