- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
For financial advisors there are rules about "fiduciary standards," which means that financial planners are obligated by law to act in the best interests of the client. (In some cases this means, for instance, that a stock broker is not supposed to sell you a bad stock just because he gets a high commission on the sale.)
Is there a rule like that for lawyers? it seems like a lawyer ought to be obliged to tell his client that the suit she wishes to bring forward is frivolous and without merit and is likely to end up costing her money.
Re: attorney ethics/frivolous suits, I did a little research but didn't come up with anything exactly on point. Although there are very specific ethical standards for attorneys in NY (some people might be surprised at that), apparently the "frivolous" idea is a somewhat gray area and is tough to define or pin down.
Based on the small amount of material I've read, this suit seemed weak from the get-go but it's possible that it appeared to have more merit when it was first filed than it does now. It's also possible that Oksana insisted that her attorneys continue with it in spite of their best advice to the contrary. If that's what happened, they would have been obligated to follow her instructions -- in which case the judgment against her is her fault, not theirs.
Yes, there is a fiduciary duty for attorneys. If an attorney violates this duty, including malpractice (which giving crappy advice is), they can face a lot of problems. The litigant can sue their attorney for this violation. Also, if the judge believes the attorney / firm have acted improperly, they can impose monetary penalties on the attorney / firm rather than the litigant. In extreme cases, attorneys / firms can be held in contempt, but this is usually reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of bad faith. Also, if an attorney files many frivolous claim and the bar gets word there can be a wide range of punishments, including even suspension and revocation of their license.
There is no obligation to take on a claim that is obviously ridiculous, in fact, there is an obligation not to waste the court's time. This isn't standard legal practice, but in my view the litigating attorney should also be held responsible for a frivolous case. The lawyer is obligated to make sure their client doesn't do something stupid, and if they insist on doing an action you deem legally imprudent you have an obligation to withdraw (the exception being in the case of mental illness / distress, in which case get a guardian). But that's just me.
Anyway - I know nothing about this case, but the claim sounds ridiculous just from this article.
Understand and agree re: fiduciary duty & was surprised not to find anything more definite re: suits w/o merit & bad advice. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places or didn't use the best search terms.
All of the above makes me wonder: (a) why the judge didn't threaten Oksana's attorney with some kind of penalty; and (b) why the suit was allowed to get as far as it did. It seems odd that the other side couldn't get it thrown out to begin with.
Understand and agree re: fiduciary duty & was surprised not to find anything more definite re: suits w/o merit & bad advice. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places or didn't use the best search terms.
All of the above makes me wonder: (a) why the judge didn't threaten Oksana's attorney with some kind of penalty; and (b) why the suit was allowed to get as far as it did. It seems odd that the other side couldn't get it thrown out to begin with.
This is disheartening to read. This woman seems not to be able to gain a steady footing in life. Clearly for her it's not just the ice that's slippery.
I haven't read about Oksana's lawsuit yet, but frivolous suits are brought quite a bit, despite the ethical standards that attorneys in every state are supposed to uphold. Also, all law students have to take a course in legal ethics, at least it was so back in the '80s. I'm assuming that hasn't changed. Furthermore, any lawyer can be brought up on malpractice charges, whether the charges have merit is another story.
Edited to Add: Oksana's attorneys probably need to be on their guard. Since the lawsuit did not go her way, she may try to sue them.
It's so very sad to see what her life has come to.
It makes you wonder what if? What if Kristi had decided to defend her title in 1994? What if Oksana won silver instead, would she have continued on towards 1998? Then again if Kristi did come back would there ever have been the Nancy/Tonia saga? Would the sport popularity exploded without the knee whack? Oh the figure skating drama.