>
> Dan Berlin ("DB"):
>
> DB> Not quite.
>
> DB> In law, at least, we allow it in quite a few cases without
> DB> anything further required, and in almost all cases if the
> DB> clients consent after consultation.
>
> Yes, but "consent" does not always imply that the conflict ceases to
> exist or is presumed to have no effect.
In law, it does mean both of these.
It's not a conflict of interest if your client has consented (unless
it's of the types of conflicts you can't have waived, which, as i said
above, are very rare).
It's that simple.
> It may imply that the
> conflict is presumed to be managable or even beneficial.
>
Nope, and in fact, whether the conflict is good, manageable, etc, never
enters the picture in the case of lawyers.
In other fields, conflicts of interest don't ever become okay (at least
in any fields i've ever read ethics codes in, or any ethics-related
laws i've ever read) because they are beneficial or manageable in
certain situations to certain people.
However, they can become unacceptable simply because they are
beneficial or manageable to one ore more parties.
In easy terms, i've never seen a law that said "performing z is an okay
conflict or not a conflict because it's beneficial to x or presumed
manageable by x". I've seen plenty of laws that say "it's an
unacceptable [ie can't we waived, consented to, etc] conflict for
someone performing z to have a beneficial interest in x or y"
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 15 01:03:46 2003