“Well, Nemesis represents ACME,” Paradox continued, offering a big flat-rate comparison and saying that if we could settle all of our customers` receivables, we could split the funds among our customers. (a) A lawyer representing two or more clients may not conclude a comprehensive comparison of the claims of or against the clients or, in the context of criminal proceedings, a comprehensive agreement on pleadings of guilt or of Nolo Contendere, unless each client gives informed written consent. The lawyer`s disclosure includes the existence and nature of any claims or means, as well as the participation of each person in the transaction. (b) The settlement of claims in a non-cross-class comparison is interdependent if: Recently, a New York law firm represented 587 individuals with discrimination rights against the same defendant. The law firm reached an agreement with the company, which included that the company would retain the law firm at $1 million a year after the deal. It also contained provisions preventing the Registry from receiving new complainants against the company. The Court of Appeal found that the agreement between the law firm and the company was a deplorable and non-volatile conflict of interest. (b) This rule does not apply to class actions requiring judicial authorization. The underlying facts of Johnson v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 660 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2011) call into question the wisdom of this distinction and whether aggregate comparisons should also be subject to judicial review. In aggregate comparisons in which two or more clients are jointly represented by the same attorney to settle their claims, a settlement offer triggers The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.8(g). It is called the “aggregate billing rule” and applies in all jurisdictions in the United States, either through the adoption of the model rules by the state or through a state ethical rule.

In accordance with Rule 1.8 (g), there are five main areas of responsibility for the lawyer: paradox turned to Ethox and sought advice. “I have questions about a possible deal,” Paradox said. “Do you remember how we represented a group of plaintiffs who sued ACME Industries for exposure to toxic fumes?” All jurisdictions require compliance with the aggregated billing rule. However, to comply with the rule, the attorney must first comply with MRPC 1.6(a) which governs the disclosure of information about replacement clients. The inclusion of a statement in a retention agreement that the disclosure of confidential information may be necessary to obtain an aggregate statement may be made in accordance with Rule 1.6(a). (a) a non-collective global comparison is a comparison of the claims of two or more individual rightholders, in which the settlement of rights is interdependent. If, in this case, judicial review had been necessary, Nextel`s lawyers would probably never have proposed such a corrupt scheme and the plaintiffs` lawyers would not have tried to put the wool on their clients` eyes. While the Standard Rules of Professional Conduct allow aggregated accounts with specific rules and procedures, it may be time to realize that these rules may not be enough. Instead, this incident perhaps shows us that it is time to require judicial authorization for global comparisons, just like for class actions, to ensure that everyone will be properly protected in the future.

“Such an agreement seems to be causing quite a mess of conflict,” Paradox said worriedly. “Some of our customers seem to be striving to settle in…