Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Attorney-Client Privilege Versus The Pto's Duty Of Candor: Resolving The Clash In Simultaneous Patent Representations, Todd M. Becker
Attorney-Client Privilege Versus The Pto's Duty Of Candor: Resolving The Clash In Simultaneous Patent Representations, Todd M. Becker
Washington Law Review
Patent attorneys play dual roles: they are simultaneously attorneys and patent practitioners. Their dual role causes problems when the rules that govern one role conflict with the rules that govern the other. One such problem is illustrated in Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., where a patent attorney simultaneously representing two clients was caught between the Patent & Trademark Office's duty of candor and the attorney's duty of confidentiality imposed by the rules of professional responsibility. The Molins decision presents a problem because it creates uncertainty about whether confidentiality can be maintained by using the attorney-client privilege to defeat the …
Taxing Contingency Fee Attorneys As Investors: Recognizing The Modern Reality, Robert M. Amkraut
Taxing Contingency Fee Attorneys As Investors: Recognizing The Modern Reality, Robert M. Amkraut
Washington Law Review
In the 1995 case of Boccardo v. Commissioner, the Ninth Circuit changed the tax treatment of advances made by attorneys working on contingency fee arrangements. The court held that, in a specific type of contingency fee arrangement, costs paid by an attorney are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. This decision not only challenges assumptions underlying decades of case law and centuries of legal ethical tradition, but it also undermines the tax accounting principle of matching expenses with related income. This Note summarizes the traditional rationales for prohibiting attorneys from deducting such costs and analyzes the Boccardo decision. …
Attorney Malpractice Liability To Non-Clients In Washington: Is The New Modified Multi-Factor Balancing Test An Improvement?, Sheryl L.R. Miller
Attorney Malpractice Liability To Non-Clients In Washington: Is The New Modified Multi-Factor Balancing Test An Improvement?, Sheryl L.R. Miller
Washington Law Review
Most jurisdictions recognize a cause of action for legal malpractice against a non-client only where the attorney-client relationship is formed to benefit a third-party nonclient. This rule generally operates to preclude an attorney's potential liability to a client's adversary. Washington departed from the majority in 1992 in Bohn v. Cody, where the Washington Supreme Court found that an attorney did owe a duty to his client's adversary. Two years later, in Trask v. Butler, the supreme court modified Bohn's test for determining attorney malpractice liability to third parties to conform Washington's law with the majority of jurisdictions. …