Timeline for Is a lawyer required to discuss adjournment requests with a client before consenting?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2023 at 5:08 | comment | added | bdb484 | That sounds like a confirmation that this is just a guess. And I suppose it's fine to just make a guess, but it would probably be better to disclose that you're just guessing rather than offering a statement of the law. | |
| Apr 3, 2023 at 2:50 | comment | added | Greendrake | @bdb484 We don't need laws to allow things, only to prohibit. I am not aware of any law prohibiting a lawyer from taking into account the view of their client in making decision whether to consent to an adjournment. You don't seem to be aware of one either. So, odds are it doesn't exist, in which case the answer is correct. | |
| Apr 3, 2023 at 2:25 | comment | added | bdb484 | That's not an unreasonable reading of the rule. Just the same, I think this answer would benefit from some kind of law supporting it, as it is indistinguishable from a random guess at this point. | |
| Apr 2, 2023 at 22:49 | comment | added | Greendrake | @bdb484 The key word in "A lawyer shall agree to reasonable requests" is "reasonable". As we know, that definition is quite bendable towards the interests of either side. If a lawyer wants his client to be happy, he would argue what is reasonable and what is not. | |
| Apr 2, 2023 at 19:59 | comment | added | bdb484 | @jen has an answer that indicates the same is true in Canada. | |
| Apr 2, 2023 at 19:58 | comment | added | bdb484 | I'm not sure this is quite correct. I have no doubt the client can demand that the lawyer "check with me" before agreeing to an adjournment, but I suspect that a lawyer -- in the United States, at least -- is not free to delegate the actual decision to the client. | |
| Apr 2, 2023 at 3:31 | history | answered | Greendrake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |