Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

No Conflict

  • Author(s): Bussel, Daniel
  • et al.

Published Web Location

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1978976
No data is associated with this publication.
Abstract

For thirty years, American lawyers have labored under an onerous dis-qualification rule precluding them from being “directly adverse” to a client in a matter unrelated to that on which the client has engaged the lawyer. The rule is ahistorical, idiosyncratic, and has led to anomalous and untoward consequences. It derives from a misconception of the lawyer’s role and duty. It should be abrogated.

Item not freely available? Link broken?
Report a problem accessing this item