[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

efforts” to ensure that the nonlawyer assistant’s conduct “is compatible with the
professional obligations of the lawyer.” This, of course, meant that Machado was bound by
a client’s oral message to a lawyer’s agent, which in Machado’s case served to reinforce the
client’s point that he had retained Machado only for the bankruptcy proceeding. 15 In
dePape, a similar communication gap occurred when the law firm sent a local immigration
lawyer to assist its client at the border. It fell to this agent of the law firm to communicate
to the client for the first time the nature of the proposed but undesired immigration status.
Both cases illustrate how an apparent lack of communication between agents of a lawyer
and a lawyer can complicate a lawyer’s representation of a client.
dePape v. Trinity Health Systems, Inc.
242 F. Supp. 2d 585 (N.D. Iowa 2003)
BENNETT, Chief Judge . . .
The plaintiff in this breach-of-contract and legal malpractice case, Dr. Gregory dePape,
is a Canadian citizen who completed his medical studies and training in Canada.
Thousands of miles away in the small city of Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trimark Physicians Group,
Ltd. (“Trimark”) [a wholly owned subsidiary of Trinity Health Systems, Inc.] sought a
family physician to fill a vacancy and to meet the burgeoning needs of the Fort Dodge
medical community. . . . Trimark successfully recruited Dr. dePape to fill this vacancy, and
in March of 1999, Trimark and Dr. dePape, while still living and working in Canada,
entered into a five-year employment contract.
As part of the contract negotiations process, the parties discussed immigration matters
and the fact that Dr. dePape needed to obtain a visa for lawful entry and permission to
work in the United States prior to beginning employment. In order to obtain such
permission, Trimark engaged the services of a St. Louis, Missouri law firm, Blumenfeld,
Kaplan & Sandweiss, P.C. . . .
On April 23, 1999, one month after Trimark and Dr. dePape entered into their
employment contract, Blumenfeld held an initial conference regarding its representation of
Trimark and Dr. dePape. Partners A and B of the Blumenfeld firm, [and representatives of
Trimark] participated in this initial conference. Notably, Blumenfeld did not advise Dr.
dePape to participate, nor did it even inform him of the conference. At this conference,
Blumenfeld outlined Dr. dePape’s immigration options. At the time of this conference,
Blumenfeld learned (1) that Dr. dePape had a five-year employment contract with
Trimark; (2) that both Dr. dePape and Trimark expected an employment relationship that
would endure longer than five years and, ideally, the entirety of Dr. dePape’s medical
career; and (3) that Dr. dePape had not taken a three-stage set of examinations, known as
the USMLE’s [United States Medical Licensing Examination], which precluded him from
receiving one of the two visas available to foreign physicians — namely, the H-1B visa [the
preferred method of bringing a foreign physician into the United States] . . .
After holding the initial conference, Partner A sent [Trimark] an engagement letter on
April 26, 1999, confirming the parties’ agreement and Blumenfeld’s commitment to
142