When can a lawyer choose what to work on? Must they think they have a chance at success? I used to work for a very large company had it's own legal division. If the company wanted to sue someone but the lawyers didn't think they had a good chance to win, must the lawyers still work to accomplish this? I am part of a union where many members' work has been heavily affected by COVID. The members' views and opinions are very divided. Where I live there certainly has been talk that some unions may be sued for failing to protect their members against employer COVID policies. My union hired a team of lawyers who they have a long standing relationship with. They were tasked to review legalities of employer COVID policies. I think they called these lawyers &quot;outside counsel&quot;, does this mean they are not part of the same organization so (in theory) their advice and position is objective and neutral? The principal lawyer said that members are free to consult legal council of their own choosing and no retribution would happen for it. A member had hired a lawyer with an opposing view to the union's lawyers. Would this other lawyer necessarily have to agree with this view or believe there is a chance at success (e.g. proving it's illegal discrimination to have a COVID policy in the workplace)?
I think they called these lawyers &quot;outside counsel&quot;, does this mean they are not part of the same organization so (in theory) their advice and position is objective and neutral? Not really. The economics of the arrangement are different, but outside counsel is not more or less objective and neutral, in theory at least, than in house counsel. Outside counsel and in house counsel owe essentially the same duties in the context of a lawyer-client relationship to the client (in this case, the union), although, in practice, outside counsel with evaluate those duties and that relationship in the context of a single one off assignment, while in house counsel will evaluate those duties with a much richer understanding of the underlying facts of a matter and the larger context in which it is playing out. A lawyer's duty is to advance the objectives of the client, and those objective are largely within the province of the client and not the lawyer, although a lawyer has greater latitude in exercise discretion regarding the means by which this objective is achieved. For example, a client could legitimately say that it wants to bring a lawsuit arising out of an incident it was involved in, but the lawyer would usually decide which court it was filed in, what specific legal claims were asserted, and so on. [If] the lawyers didn't think they had a good chance to win, must the lawyers still work to accomplish this? There are a few boundary lines, short of resigning or withdrawing from representation when not legally or ethically required to do so, because the lawyer simply doesn't want to do it. First, the lawyer isn't allowed to bring groundless, frivolous, or vexatious litigation, or otherwise engage in unethical conduct (e.g. fraud), even if the client wants to do so. Second, if a lawyer with an organization as a client (like a union) believes that someone within the organization, possibly with some authority, is about to engage in illegal activity that will hurt the organization, the lawyer has a duty to speak up (internally) about this conduct and urge the client representative not to break the law, if necessary, going up as high in the management or governance of the company as necessary (e.g. up to the highest governing board or CEO) to blow the whistle on this conduct internally within the organization, and to resign if the lawyer can't otherwise avoid being involved in illegal conduct by representatives of the organization. Third, the lawyer must counsel the client representative in a manner sufficient to make the client's decision to pursue a court of action that is unlikely to win, but is not groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or illegal, an informed decision. But, if the client decides to go forward with a course of action or objective after making an informed decision to do so with information provided by the lawyer, the lawyer has to do his or her best to carry out the decision of the client even if it would not have been the decision that the lawyer would have made. The lawyer is still an agent of the client, carrying out the client's wishes, not an entirely independent free actor. A member had hired a lawyer with an opposing view to the union's lawyers. Would this other lawyer necessarily have to agree with this view or believe there is a chance at success (e.g. proving it's illegal discrimination to have a COVID policy in the workplace)? Again, no. Lawyers don't have to agree personally with the positions that they take on behalf of their clients, so long as those positions are not groundless, frivolous, or vexatious litigation, and the lawyer's work does not otherwise engage in unethical conduct (e.g. fraud), it isn't improper for the lawyer to do that. To provide some context for why these rules are the case, keep in mind that lawyers are in the business, primarily, of dealing with situations in which there are potential ambiguities or uncertainties in the law. Lawyers, judges, and courts recognize that the law and language are pliable and subject to interpretation and application to a set of facts and that it is very frequently (although not always) possible to make legitimate arguments for different interpretations of it. And, it is hard, in advance, to know which of multiple different interpretations will wind up being found to be correct (with many legal issues in a case often never having those ambiguities resolved in that case because some other factor ends up making the ambiguous issues irrelevant). Lawyers exist to make sure that every legitimate interpretation that benefits a represented party involved in an interaction to which the law applies is given fair consideration, with someone else generally making the final decision about what to do.
Article 640 of the Italian Penal Code under the heading &quot;Crimes against property by fraud&quot; begins (via Google Translate): Anyone who, by artifice or deceit, by misleading someone, procures an unfair profit to himself... And the article (cited by the OP in a comment) says the suspect... ...worked in the health sector and had been suspended from his job because he had refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The jab is mandatory for all health workers. So, it seems the allegation is that he intended to &quot;profit&quot; by gaining a COVID-19 vaccine certificate and therefore unjust employment after attempting to use the silicone patch to deceive the health worker. Edit following @jkej's comment observing that the alleged unfair profit was never actually procured. The more likely charge - depending on the actual evidence - would seem to fall under Article 56 which begins under the heading Crime Attempted (again via Google Translate): Whoever carries out suitable acts, directed in an unequivocal way to commit a crime, is liable for an attempted crime, if the action is not carried out or the event does not occur.
Judges simply do not supervise each other in a courtroom in terms of keeping each other "honest." That's simply not how the courts work. Judges are independent in order to not be influenced by bias. A judge would look very unkindly upon a lawyer who requested another judge be in the courtroom in an extra-judicial sense, or in some sort of legal sense as (wrongly) perceived by the lawyer. A lawyer is an officer of the court, and as such, knows what is legal in an administrative sense, and would simply not request another judge be in the courtroom. A lawyer can request a different judge be assigned or take over a case, but the request must generally have a legitimate reason that has a legal basis, i.e., a documented conflict of interest on the part of the judge, or evidence of racial bias. And it is up to the court to grant a change. Yes, judges have been found to be corrupt and have been removed from the bench. But that doesn't happen very often, and that removal is part of the judicial process to keep judges honest and get rid of "bad" judges. Yes, judges do issue rulings that are struck down on appeal; that's why there is an appeal process. That is the legal mechanism to keep judges "honest." So, the remedy for what is perceived as an unfair judge or a biased ruling is an appeal to a higher court.
Choice of law (also called conflict of laws) arises when a legal dispute occurs across legal boundaries. For example, suppose I live in New York, and sign a contract to buy computers from you, a company headquartered in California. If we have a dispute about the contract, we need to decide which state's law and which courts (and juries) will be used to resolve the dispute. The law that applies to our dispute is called the applicable or governing law. In many cases, it doesn’t matter which law or court we use. But in some cases, it matters a lot. For example, the California law may be friendlier to customers, or a jury in New York may be friendlier to me than to a California companies. Since we know that the choice of law and court may matter, we may specify in the contract which laws and courts will be used to resolve any disputes. (These may not be the same. The contract could say that our case will be heard in the SDNY using CA law.) The clause that says which laws apply, and which courts will apply them, is called a governing or applicable law clause. Here’s an example many of us have used, probably without realizing it: APPLICABLE LAW By using any Amazon Service, you agree that the Federal Arbitration Act, applicable federal law, and the laws of the state of Washington, without regard to principles of conflict of laws, will govern these Conditions of Use and any dispute of any sort that might arise between you and Amazon.
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with US law, so this answer is from a general perspective. It should apply in most jurisdictions, though. Are there any laws or regulations which I can use to convince a hospital's billing department to talk to me, despite the fact that they have a clear policy otherwise? No, I don't think so. A company or organization is generally free to decide for themselves who will or will not communicate with you - I don't think there is any law giving you a right to choose. How would this even work? What if the people you ask to talk to are overworked, on vacation or just not qualified? However - you do have another, more important right: To be considered valid, a bill must provide credible evidence that the charges are justified. You cannot just ask someone to give you money, you must actually provide a reason why you are owed money. In this case, this means the hospital must send you a bill that you can understand and verify. To get this: First, stop bugging them over the phone. Once a point is reached where legal action seems likely (like in your case), any information you get is only really useful to you when in writing. So do everything in writing. It's fine to talk to them if it helps solve the problem - but insist on getting things in writing afterwards. The first thing you need to write is a formal letter that you refuse to accept the bill, because you cannot verify it. Outline in details what parts you cannot understand/verify, and ask for the information you need (such as what the codes mean). Once you have received a satisfatory explanation of the bill (which may take multiple letters), you go through it with a fine comb, and dispute any items that you think are unjustified. You may need the help of a lawyer to exercise these steps, but in principle you can probably do it on your own, too. Whether you get a lawyer is ultimately a trade-off (making a mistake may cost you money, but hiring a lawyer costs money, too). A first consultation with a lawyer is probably not too costly (ask first!), and may help you to decide whether you need more assistance.
If no such challenge has occurred to this day, who could potentially have a standing to bring it to court? Beside ohwilleke's points, such a challenge would only seem viable if the imposed timeframe for finding new job (60 days) was practically not sufficient to secure one for a person eligible for a H1B visa. These visas are not granted to random people most of which would struggle to find a job in the US. They are granted to qualified specialty occupation holders — taking into account the market demand for particular occupations/skills. The expectation is that H1B visa holders should not have trouble finding jobs and, if fired, should be able to secure a new job in a matter of few weeks. If they cannot do so it means they are not in demand, which means they no longer fit the visa grant criteria and therefore should leave. With the above in mind, "the power to coerce workers" is legally just bargaining power, not threat or force. The workers are welcome to accept offered conditions, or take chance to find better ones in 60 days if they think they are skilled and demanded enough. And if they do not think that, they should not be in the country on H1B visa in the first place.
When they start giving legal advice ... unless your PA is a lawyer. In a nutshell, legal advice has the following characteristics: Requires legal knowledge, skill, education and judgment Applies specific law to a particular set of circumstances Affects someone's legal rights or responsibilities Creates rights and responsibilities in the advice-giver Unlike legal information - such as information posted on a street sign - legal advice proposes a specific course of action a client should take. For instance, it's the difference between telling someone what to do (legal advice) as opposed to how to do it (legal information). For your specific questions Can they research the CC&amp;Rs, Bylaws or other such states, federal statues to help me better understand the letter? Researching and even summarising is not legal advice. If they give opinions on what you should do as a result of that research it is legal advice. Can they write up a response letter that I would look at and approve ... Yes ... or if minor enough they could just respond? It depends on what's involved. If it is a purely factual response (&quot;Is this your car?&quot;) then this is ok. If it is legal advocacy, it isn't. Putting aside the legalities; how does your PA feel about you suing them if they stuff any of this up? If I was your PA, I wouldn't be acting as your agent without an indemnity.
As I understand it, the legal distinction here is: Whose choice was it that you not continue in your job? If the company was prepared to offer you an extension, until you told them that you were not interested, you are leaving of your own free will, and would not be entitled to redundancy rights. If your employer did not extend the contract when you would have been willing to continue, that is either a redundancy, or a dismissal of another kind. If you were dismissed for valid cause, you have no redundancy rights. if you were let go because of a lack of work, or because the employer decided not to have anyone doing that job, that I gather would be redundancy.