Law Commons^™

Adversary Ethics: More Dirty Tricks, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article the author provides a primer on the more common forms of cheating employed by trial lawyers. Another purpose is to suggest that there are antidotes that may be administered to curb these abuses, assuming that trial attorneys are alert enough to invoke them, and trial judges are willing to apply them.

The Doctor And His Lawyer: Conflicts Of Interest, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article will not survey and catalog all available cases dealing with the "insurance counsel's tightrope." Instead, it will focus on the identification and resolution of conflicts of interest that may arise at various stages of the litigation of a medical malpractice action in which a lawyer has been retained to represent the interests of both the physician policy-holder and his insurance carrier. Many of the problems examined are applicable to all insurance defense litigation, and the combination of large claims and complex issues presented in medical malpractice cases, together with the distrust of lawyers shared by many doctors, provides …

Solicitation And The Uncertain Status Of The Code Of Professional Responsibility In Kentucky, Eugene R. Gaetke

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In 1969 the Kentucky Supreme Court adopted the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility as the disciplinary rules binding upon attorneys practicing in the state. The Court adopted the Code as an apparent attempt to provide the Kentucky bench and bar the certainty and guidance offered by a codification of the frequently subjective and occasionally nebulous body of law known as legal ethics. The Court used particular language in its rule adopting the Code, however, which renders uncertain the precise status of the Code in Kentucky. As a result, a conscientious practitioner in Kentucky cannot confidently look to the …

Kentucky Law Survey: Professional Responsibility, Eugene R. Gaetke, Rebecca G. Casey

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In the face of persistent criticism of the legal profession, from within as well as without, the Kentucky Supreme Court exhibits a certain degree of ambivalence toward issues of professional responsibility. This ambivalence manifests itself in two ways.

First, the Court's treatment of different categories of professional misconduct seems at times unjustifiably inconsistent. The Court reacts to certain misconduct in an almost uniformly harsh manner, evincing the attitude of a strict disciplinarian for the practicing bar. Occasionally, however, the Court responds to various other kinds of equally gross misconduct with apparently undue leniency. In such cases the Court seems to …