Explore the vast range of titles available.

The practice of law can seem so simple, yet so daunting.The lawyer earns fees by representing clients, but is also subject to limits that can put the brakes on client representation.This is called \"fighting fair,\" which requires zealous advocacy within the bounds of the law.

Why didn't they just rely on your logic? Because the view we just expressed has not prevailed. Lawyers happily share the fees of Client A brought into the firm by Lawyer A and, without a nod at the fiduciary duty of loyalty to Client A, take positions adverse to-no \"relish\" the prospect of suing-Client A, all justified by the fact that Lawyer A works in a different country, firm office or department, or on a different floor, or the lawyer suing Client A has never even met Lawyer A. Is that it? [...] exercising our prerogative under Model Rule 2.1, we have candidly shared with you our dim view of each of these ideas on public policy grounds.

[...] this is precisely where such an article should begin. Why such concern? Because no one is videotaping your conversation with the prospective client.

In the May 2000 issue of this Journal, Daniel R. Fischel, Dean of the University of Chicago School of Law, argued in favor of allowing lawyers to engage in the practice of law while combining and sharing profits with nonlawyers, commonly known as multidisciplinary practice. This issue—perhaps the most important facing the legal professional in the last century—continues to be a subject of much debate in the American Bar Association, American law schools, and law firms across the country. Currently, Rule 5.4 of the Model Rules Professional Conduct, adopted by every state, prohibits lawyers from forming multi-disciplinary practice firms (MDPs). In this article responding to Dean Fischel's arguments, Lawrence J. Fox sets out his opposition to MDPs.

We have synthesized pulmonary surfactant apoprotein SP-B peptides by solid-phase chemistry and demonstrated their ability to enhance the surface-active properties of synthetic lipid mixtures. The synthetic peptides were reactive with antiserum generated against the native bovine surfactant peptide. Both peptides conferred surfactant-like properties to synthetic lipid mixtures as assessed by a Wilhelmy balance and pulsating bubble surfactometer. Likewise, mixtures of synthetic SP-B peptides and lipid restored compliance of isolated surfactant-deficient rat lungs. This work demonstrates the utility of SP-B as a functional component of pulmonary surfactant mixtures for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome or other disorders characterized by surfactant deficiency.

The OTS enforcement proceeding against Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler sent shock waves through the profession raising fundamental questions regarding the ethical obligations of lawyers for regulated clients. Lawrence J. Fox seeks to demonstrate the significant departures in the OTS positions from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Topics addressed include confidentiality, duty of disclosure, when to consider going up the corporate ladder, and conflicts of interest.

In the wake of the Enron debacle, the President of the American Bar Association (ABA) appointed the Commission on Corporate Governance, chaired by James Cheek, a respected and renowned corporate lawyer from Tennessee. The Commission recommended that the ABA turn the discretion to breach confidentiality contained in the August 2001 proposals to a mandatory reporting rule for the profession. Lawyers would be required to disclose client frauds in which their services have been employed. If the Commission is going to recommend changes, then the Commission must first demonstrate that: 1. those lawyers who are accused of wrongdoing did not violate present rules; 2. their conduct caused or wrongfully exacerbated the harm; 3. if the rules were changed, the harm that occurred would have been prevented; and 4. the changes in the rules proposed by the Commission will do more good than harm.