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

10.See, e.g., Hendry v. Pelland, 73 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (lawyers represented property owners with conflicting
interests).
11. Angela Ward, Arce Jeopardizes Family Lawyers’ Fee; Jury Awards 6.3 Million Verdict for Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Texas Lawyer 16 (Nov. 15, 1999).
12. Piro v. Sarofim, 80 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App. 2002).
13. RLGL § 37, Comment e.
14. See RLGL § 42(2).
15. E.g., Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2009) (lawyer who requested an excessive
fee in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct and did not provide adequate documentation to court forfeits entire fee
despite successful result in medical malpractice case).
16. E.g., Hill v. Douglas, 271 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1971) (lawyer did not forfeit fee until he should have known he would
be a witness).
17. See, e.g., Federal Trade Comm’n v. Network Services Depot Inc., 617 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (lawyer who
failed to diligently review source of client’s flat fee was willfully ignorant that funds were derived from client’s
fraudulent activities and must surrender most of fee to a constructive trust designed to benefit fraud victims).
18. E.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 848, 853 (2012).
19. See Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., W. William Hodes & Peter R. Jarvis, The Law of Lawyering § 9.32 (2016).
20. United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir. 1991) (en banc).
21. A “bona fide purchaser for value” is a person who “was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was
subject to forfeiture” when he took the property. 21 U.S.C. § 853(c) (2012).
22. Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989); United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989).
23. Id. at 626.
24. See, e.g., United States v. McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2002) (burden of proof on lawyer F. Lee Bailey to
identify the portion of the fee collected while he was a bona fide purchaser for value).
25. Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 959 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2007) (lawyer suspended for two years and ordered to disgorge fee to
client who was the victim of a conflict of interest); Fla. Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2007) (companion case,
lawyer disbarred and ordered to disgorge fee).
26. Ennis v. Ennis, 276 N.W.2d 341 (Wis. 1979).
27. In re Conway, 301 N.W.2d 253 (Wis. 1981).
28. United States v. Moffitt, Zwerling & Kemler, P.C., 83 F.3d 660 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1101
(1997) (statutory fee forfeiture and state law conversion action).
29. See, e.g., In re Bonneville Pacific Corp., 196 B.R. 868 (D. Utah 1996); Goldstein v. Lees, 120 Cal. Rptr. 253
(Cal. App. 1975).
2. Doe testified that she and Monroe “were friends before, friends during, and friends after — now.”
3. We note there was no proof Monroe’s sexual relationship with Doe impacted the child custody dispute between
Doe and her husband. The board merely argues “the relationship could have had negative repercussions on Ms. Doe’s
custody of her child.” (Emphasis added.)
4. Doe had been treated in the past for other mental health problems, but there is no evidence these past problems
were active at the time in question or had any influence on Doe’s capacity for good decision-making.
5. Doe was being treated for her situational depression during the time in question, but the board introduced no
evidence from Doe or her therapist that Doe’s relationship with Monroe adversely affected Doe’s mental or emotional
state. The only harm shown in the record was attorney fees incurred by Doe that were attributable to Monroe’s contact
with Doe’s new attorney.
1. MR 1.8(f) and Comment [11], 5.4(c); RLGL § 134, Comment f.
2. Id.; see also In re R. of Prof. Conduct, 2 P.3d 806 (Mont. 2000). See Thomas D. Morgan, What Insurance Scholars
Should Know About Professional Responsibility, 4 Conn. Ins. L.J. 1 (1997-1998).
3. Stephen Pepper, Applying the Fundamentals of Lawyers’ Ethics to Insurance Defense Practice, 4 Conn. Ins. L.J. 27
(1997); Charles Silver & Kent Syverud, The Professional Responsibilities of Insurance Defense Lawyers, 45 Duke L.J. 255
(1995).
4. Fla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.7(e) (2017).
5. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Traver, 980 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. 1998) (insurer does not have the right, comparable
to that of a client, to control defense lawyer). But see Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) (insurer might
331