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

discrimination, and all areas of the law in between, in which attorneys who specialize in a
particular field represent numerous, different clients. . . . Accordingly, we hold that,
pursuant to Rule 5.6 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, a protective order
or confidential settlement agreement may not be construed or enforced to preclude an
attorney from representing a client in a subsequent matter involving similar facts and/or
parties based solely upon the attorney’s obligations to maintain the confidentiality of
information subject to such protective order or confidential settlement agreement. 13 . . .
Problems
15-2. Martyn & Fox is worried about the firm’s new lease obligation. What if the firm
says that “any lawyer who leaves the firm and practices within 100 miles must pay the firm
his last year’s draw”? “Forfeits his pension”? “Owes the firm 25 percent of all fees generated
by former Martyn & Fox clients”?
15-3. Martyn & Fox’s manufacturing client is fed up with repetitive products liability
suits over allegedly defective forklift trucks brought by one law firm over the last decade.
“Tell them we’ll settle with their latest client for an extra $100,000, if they promise never
to sue us again,” CEO tells our lawyer. Is this a great idea? What if the law firm comes back
and says: “We’ll agree not to sue again, if you hire us as safety consultants for $200,000 per
year”?
C. Advertising and Solicitation Model Rules 7.1-7.5, 8.5
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc.
515 U.S. 618 (1995)
Justice O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rules of the Florida Bar prohibit personal injury lawyers from sending targeted directmail
solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster.
This case asks us to consider whether such Rules violate the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution. We hold that in the circumstances presented here, they
do not. . . .
In 1989, the Florida Bar (Bar) completed a 2-year study of the effects of lawyer
advertising on public opinion. After conducting hearings, commissioning surveys, and
reviewing extensive public commentary, the Bar determined that several changes to its
advertising rules were in order. In late 1990, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Bar’s
proposed amendments with some modifications. Two of these amendments are at issue in
this case. Rule 4-7.4(b)(1) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not send, or knowingly permit to
be sent, . . . a written communication to a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining
professional employment if: (A) the written communication concerns an action for personal
injury or wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident or disaster involving the person
465