Can the right to self-represent be waived due to conflict of interest? If a plaintiff and defendant have a personal connection, and one (or both) of them represents themselves, won't that pose a conflict of interest between the councillor(s) and the opposing side(s)?
The purpose of the conflict of interest rules is to ensure that attorneys are acting in the interests of the clients they represent in that particular case and not their own interests, the interests of their friends or families, or the interests of their other clients. If a person is representing themselves, it is impossible for them to have a conflict of interest that would prevent them from serving their own interest because any such conflict could only change their interest. Say Alice wants to represent herself in a lawsuit against Bob and Bob hires Charlie to represent him. Even if Charlie is a close friend of Alice, that couldn't cause Alice to act against her own interests out of friendship to Charlie. Necessarily, she would only act in Charlie's interests if it was in her own interest to do so. So there simply cannot be a conflict that would prevent a person from acting in their own interest. They could only put someone else's interest above their own if it was in their own interest to do so, in which case it would not be putting anything above their own interest.
As a adult of sound mind, you are responsible for your actions. Background checks for job applications are common place to determine suitability. The employers have the right (and responsibility) to choose what is in their best interest. If through your previous and present actions, they come to the conclusion that you will become a liability to their interests, they will determine that you are not suitable for the position. Not being suitable for a position is not a discrimination, but a determination of fact. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The same is true for the employers. They too have the obligation to act in their own that of their other employees that of their clients interests. In cases where a judge comes to a conclusion that the rights of others are being impeaded, they will most likely decide for that party. It is unlikely that a judge will assume that an individual is the center of the universe and that everyone else must revolve around that individual.
A lawsuit would be unsuccessful. Prosecutors have discretion to prioritize whichever offenses they think are most important, and they are generally immune from civil liability. This is a political grievance, and it comes with a political remedy; voters can recall the DA or vote for a new one when his term ends.
The purpose is to avoid the possibility that the solicitor will inadvertently end up providing advice to more than one side of the same dispute or transaction, putting the solicitor in a conflict of interest situation. In the simplest case, the solicitor might already represent the landlord that the tenant is seeking to discuss legal rights vis-a-vis. Even if the advice is merely hypothetical, this is not O.K. A solicitor has a very high duty of loyalty to the solicitor's clients. Providing aid of any kind to someone adverse to the solicitor's clients that benefits that person, even if another solicitor would probably say the same thing, is a serious breach of that duty and is forbidden and sanctionable. It could get the solicitor kicked out of the profession in a worst case scenario. The duty of loyalty includes a duty to take reasonable care not to inadvertently or negligently act disloyally. There is also a risk of a more subtle sort of conflict that has to be evaluated since many disputes and transactions are not just two sided. For example, perhaps a solicitor a big commercial tenant client on the brink of a settlement with a particular landlord after lengthy and extensive negotiations (perhaps in a business lease renewal deal), and another prospective tenant client might, for example, have an interest in leasing the same property as your existing client at a higher rate. Representing both tenants/prospective tenants could creating a conflict between your two tenant clients. Screening clients based upon their landlord relationships helps solicitors to identify these conflicts and to prevent them from arising. More generally, the best practice is for a solicitor to make sufficient inquiry prior to providing any legal advice to a prospective new client, to avoid having clients that have a conflict of interest with each other. This regulation (to the extent that it is really as specific as suggested) is simply a codification of this general rule in a specific, commonly recurring situation. In large law firms, every single legal professional in the firm typically spends the first half hour or so of every day reviewing lists of new prospective clients and parties related to them in order to screen for potential conflicts of interest. (I used to have to do that when I worked in a large, international law firm for a while.) There would typically be one or more paralegals or administrators in the firm who do nothing but manage that conflicts of interest screening process. Obviously, however, this requirement is a lot less burdensome if you are solo practicing solicitor who almost entirely represents individual human being and family tenants with isolated residential leases, and works in a large city where few clients have any connections to each other.
Yes. Generally a person may designate any competent adult who is willing to be the executor. It is very common to designate a major beneficiary as executor. There is no rule against a possible conflict of interest, although an executor must treat all legatees fairly. In many jurisdictions one can also designate a legal entity as an executor. When a will is complex adn involves large sums a bank or other financial institution may be designated as executor.
To the extent Constitutionally permitted or as further limited by the state’s own law Constitutionality, a suit may be brought (or a prosecution launched) when the state has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. … a state court may only exert personal jurisdiction over an individual or entity with &quot;sufficient minimal contacts&quot; with the forum state such that the particular suit &quot;does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and justice.'&quot; What constitutes sufficient &quot;minimum contacts&quot; has been delineated in numerous cases which followed the International Shoe decision. For example, in Hanson v. Denckla, the Court proclaimed the &quot;unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the nature and quality of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws.&quot; For the abortion bill, an organisation that provides funding to Texas residents probably has “minimum contacts”, an out-of-state doctor who treats all-comers probably doesn’t. For employment laws: if the employee is based and work takes place in the state, yes. There is a separate question of which state's law applies which is independent of which state's courts can hear the case. A California court can decide that it can hear a case according to Texas law for example although, in practice, if the California court felt that all of the issues were Texan, they would probably decide they lacked jurisdiction.
If you aren't publicly registering a trade name you are probably engaged in illegal conduct. Among other things, by doing this, you are effectively hiding yourself from any lawsuits arising from the business that accurately name the defendant. You can have a business mascot or trade name, but you have to disclose that this is what it is and provide a means by which a reasonable person who needs to sue you could properly identify you.
It would be dismissed sua sponte on grounds including absolute judicial immunity from civil liability. While conflict of interest rules for judges generally prohibit ruling on lawsuits in which you could potentially have an interest, there are narrow exceptions in cases where all judges are affected. The Colorado Rule, which is similar in all U.S. jurisdictions, states: In limited circumstances, the rule of necessity applies and allows judges to hear a case in which all other judges also would have a disqualifying interest or the case could not otherwise be heard. Colo. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.11(D) (&quot;Disqualification&quot;).