A Client's Welfare (Was: Web Sweep)

Gordon P. Firemark <firemark[_at_]firemark.com> wrote:
>
> Client comes in with a complaint that someone is "using" his work
> (copyright material or business name/tradename/mark). Suppose I know
> that a fair use defense exists and will probably succeed, am I not
> still duty bound to put the user on notice of the Client's displeasure.
> I am after all, required to zealously represent MY client.

Mr. Firemark -- If you feel your client probably doesn't have a case, aren't you acting in his best interest by explaining this to him, (A) so that he'll have a better understanding of what his rights actually are, and (B) so that he doesn't waste money and energy pursuing a case that probably won't work out? Aren't you being PAID to give him the facts, so that he'll be in a better position to decide what he wants to do?

Your letter conveys an impression that you feel obliged to "zealously represent your client," but you don't feel obliged to give him the facts. How can this be? Isn't it the client's right to decide whether he wants to start a case with a 1% chance of success? Should you be making these decisions for him?

A lawyer who asserts he has an obligation to litigate for any client with the money to pay the bill is in the same class as a doctor who asserts he has an obligation to operate on any patient with the money to pay the bill. The public (people like me) doesn't understand this position.

Pat Sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Sat Jul 25 1998 - 11:27:54 GMT