Duty of Confidentiality
Larry accepted payment from Carla's mother (M) on the condition that M be informed of all aspects of the divorce, including Carla's confidential statements to Larry. This information is protected under the duty of confidentiality. Sharing such information requires the client's informed consent, which is advisable to confirm in writing (and often required under California rules for waivers). Agreeing to M's demand, especially without C's valid informed consent, would compel Larry to reveal confidential information obtained during the representation. Larry likely violated his duty of confidentiality by agreeing to the mother's condition for payment without proper client consent.
Duty Regarding Third-Party Payment
Lawyers must not accept payment from a third party unless the client gives informed consent (which must be informed written consent in CA), there is no interference with the lawyer's independent professional judgment or the client-lawyer relationship, and client confidentiality is maintained. M's condition directly links payment to the disclosure of confidential information and potentially interferes with L's independent judgment by creating an obligation to the payer. Accepting payment under these conditions without meeting all requirements, especially regarding informed written consent and non-interference, constitutes an ethical breach. Larry likely violated the rules governing acceptance of payment from a third party.
Duty Regarding Termination and Scope of Representation
Larry sent Carla a disengagement letter after the divorce but simultaneously offered future assistance on related matters and kept her file open. He later provided ongoing legal advice on new issues (tax, support, visitation). This created ambiguity about whether the attorney-client relationship truly ended or continued, at least for post-divorce matters. An attorney has a duty to clearly communicate the status and scope of representation. Failing to definitively terminate the relationship, especially while continuing to provide legal advice, makes it likely Carla remained a current client for some purposes. Larry likely violated his duty to clearly define the scope and status of the attorney-client relationship.
Duty Regarding Sexual Relationships with Clients
Larry entered into a consensual sexual relationship with Carla after her divorce was final. Both ABA and California rules strictly regulate or prohibit sexual relationships between lawyers and current clients. Given the ambiguity regarding termination and Larry's ongoing legal advice, Carla could reasonably be considered a current client when the sexual relationship began. If so, Larry violated ABA rules. The relationship also creates significant risks under California rules, particularly regarding potential undue influence given Carla's dependency and the potential impact on Larry's professional judgment. Larry likely violated ethical rules by entering into a sexual relationship with someone who was arguably still a current client.
Duty of Competence
Larry, primarily a divorce lawyer, provided ongoing advice to Carla on tax, child support, and visitation matters. A lawyer must provide competent representation, possessing the necessary legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation. If Larry lacked expertise in tax law, providing advice in that area without becoming competent or associating with a competent lawyer constitutes a breach of this duty. Larry likely violated his duty of competence by providing advice in areas outside his primary expertise, such as tax law.
Duty Regarding Business Transactions with Clients
Larry entered into a partnership agreement with Carla, wherein he provided capital and she ran the business. This constitutes a business transaction with a client (likely current, given ongoing advice and relationship). Such transactions require strict compliance with ethical rules: terms must be fair, fully disclosed in writing; the client must be advised in writing to seek independent legal counsel and given the chance to do so; and the client must give informed written consent to the terms and the lawyer's role. Larry drafted the agreement, suggested Carla could have her mother (not independent counsel) review it (not in writing), and obtained Carla's signature based on trust. This fails to meet the requirements for written disclosure, written advice to seek independent counsel, and properly documented informed written consent. Larry clearly violated the strict rules governing business transactions with a client.
Duty of Loyalty (Conflicts of Interest)
Larry's personal, sexual, and business relationships with Carla created significant conflicts of interest. His personal interests (romantic and financial) could materially limit his ability to exercise independent professional judgment when advising Carla, whether on the partnership or other legal matters. He failed to obtain the necessary informed written consent to proceed despite these conflicts (required if the conflict is consentable, which is questionable here given the multiple intertwined personal and financial interests). Larry likely violated his duty of loyalty by engaging in relationships and transactions that created conflicts of interest without proper client disclosure and consent.
(750 words)