[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: First Draft

Eric,
 
I am not sure if DC rules apply here since you are neither admitted nor have an application pending for admission (hence, I think NY rules apply) but that is a story for another day.   DC ethical opinion #273 states that "whether the lawyer will be able to continue to represent" is a valid issue to discuss in a letter to clients.  The end result that we are looking for is a peaceful solution given my prior emails on this topic.  The concern that I have is that I will be signing a letter giving you 28 clients without a mechanism for me to recover those clients should you attempt to solicit our remaining clients. 
 
If I can get assurances from Neal and you that we will not have poaching then as a man and as a military officer I will proceed with your assurances and sign the letters as you propose.  Those assurances will also go a long way to making me feel comfortable that we could maintain a mutually beneficial relationship post departure.
 
Finally, I continue to await your response to my referral arrangement suggestion.
 
Best,
Mat
From: Eric Montalvo [mailto:montalvoesq@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:59 PM
To: Mathew B. Tully, Esq.
Cc: Steve Herrick; Greg T. Rinckey; Neal Puckett
Subject: First Draft

Mat,
 
Please see attached.  I would like to remain silent regarding my ability to service the client at the new firm.  This language seems to run afoul of DC rules regarding this issue.  I can avail the ethics section to determine...just think it creates issues were they do not exist.  I also fixed language stuff as this will be directed to each client and you which you had already identified.  I have cc'd Mr. Puckett to make sure we are all on the same sheet of music.  My only question on second letter is whether you want them to send the letter directly to my e-mail?  That's fine just want to make sure that's what you wanted to do.
 
V/r
Eric