UCLA School of Law
- Author(s): Bussel, Daniel
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=1978976
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.