This automated DRAFT Written Free Agreement process is based upon the Sample Written Fee Agreements published by the State Bar of California which include:
1️⃣ An hourly Litigation Agreement;
2️⃣ An hourly Non-litigation Agreement; and
3️⃣ A Contingency Fee Agreement.
There is also another document entitled “Optional Clauses and Disclosure Forms” which lists optional provisions and disclosure forms which an Attorney/Lawyer may need to consider in certain situations.
Before proceeding with any legal representation, an Attorney/Lawyer MUST consider whether there is a current or potential future Conflict of Interest.
After determining there is a Conflict of Interest, that the Conflict of Interest is actually waivable, and if waivable, that all parties are willing to provide their fully-informed signed written consent, the Attorney/Lawyer will still need to tread very carefully, and monitor the matter as it progresses, potentially obtaining additional updated fully-informed signed written consents from the parties to ensure compliance with the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
Not all Conflicts of Interest are waivable.
If the Attorney/Lawyer is unable to reasonably conclude that in light of the Conflict of Interest he or she will be unable to provide competent and diligent representation to each Client, then legal representation is prohibited (even if the Client/s are willing to provide their Informed Written Consent).
Another example would be where the Clients are directly adverse to each other in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
In such situations, the Attorney/Lawyer CANNOT ask for a waiver and CANNOT provide legal representation based on Clients’ consent.
There are also other less obvious scenarios that may present a nonconsentable or nonwaivable Conflict of Interest.
Remember also that obtaining a waiver from one client will likely require the consent of the other Client to the release of his confidential client information, something he may be unwilling to give.
If that’s the case, then you will not be able to obtain a waiver.
Assuming that the Conflict of Interest is waivable.
In order to reconcile the Duty of Loyalty with the practice of obtaining a waiver or an advance waiver of potential future Conflict of Interest, the key is obtaining all Clients' full, intelligent, informed and free consent.
Please see our other automated legal document DRAFT Conflict Waiver (once it has been developed) to generate a draft conflict waiver for further consideration before approval, communication with and and meeting with the Clients to obtain their IWC.
For more information about the Sample Attorney-Client Fee Agreements in California published by the State Bar of California used as templates by this automated process please download* the supplementary Sample Written Fee Agreement Forms Instructions and Comments brochure from the RESOURCES section below.
Social Sharing Image: Courtesy of Melinda Gimpel on Unsplash
Enter the code WHen you pay full price to Purchase one of the following Self Service documents:
Re-Enter the code at checkout each time you buy the following documents to get a discount:
We needed a really good lawyer and after doing our research we decided to contact Blue Ocean Law Group. James runs a very efficient service and has extensive knowledge of Defamation Law. Nothing was a problem. James would follow up with me regarding issues that had arisen. He dealt with each issue in a professional and ethical manner. James would explain every detail on the phone and the process could not have been easier!
,Google Review not showing (Assume another AI error has occurred!)
Blue Ocean Law Group's website has plenty of information in easy, layman's language that explains how Defamation Law works in Australia and from there, it was really easy to book an appointment online. James is a thoroughly professional Lawyer and it was a pleasure dealing with him. Keep up the good work, James! Cheers! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
(Translated by Google) Lawyer James Ford was the best. He assisted me all the way through a dispute with a tenant who tried his best to extort money from the landlord due to a conflict with another tenant. James is reliable in his profession amongst lawyers in this field ... James patiently guided me, a landlord whose English is my second language, throughout the whole process ... It was because of his command that my case was turned from a disadvantage to an advantage. His charges are also very reasonable. So if you are a landlord I would highly recommend 'James Ford' to you.
Very helpful and thorough advice. James was able to explain the options available to us in detail, and the implications involved. He was knowledgeable and very professional. Would definitely go to him again.
James was very patient and understood my legal issues. He gave me the most detailed answer he could and extended the time as he wanted to give me the answers I needed. He was very knowledgeable in his area and was able to offer me insightful advice. Would highly recommend.
Our case was unique. My client was based in Thailand and we needed a lawyer in Australia. After searching several firms in NSW we found Blue Ocean Law Group. James was very helpful. He explained the matter in detail via emails and on several occasions over the phone to us in Thailand. The resources on the firm's website were also very helpful in providing additional information for us. I would highly recommend James and will use him again if we need a lawyer in Australia.
I had an urgent legal document I needed help with. The team was very helpful and professional, with a thorough understanding of the requirements. Highly recommend!
James was very helpful. He called back on the same day and was able to provide valuable information needed urgently. He has taken the time to explain the matter in details on several occasions over the phone and investigate the matter further on my behalf; this without costs. I would highly recommend him and will definitely use him if I need a lawyer in the future.
Bedrock Principle: Shareholders have limited liability [except in cases where the Court permits piercing of the Corporate Veil (PCV) which only occurs in closely-held Corporations.
Generally, a corporate shareholder is not liable for the debts of a corporation, except when the court pierces or lifts the corporate veil and disregards the corporate entity, thus holding shareholders personally liable as justice requires.
It is easier to find liability in closely held corporations (those with few shareholders that make the decisions - that is, active shareholders).
The veil can be pierced for the following reasons:
1️⃣ Alter ego: Where the shareholders fail to treat the corporation as a separate entity, but more like an alter ego where corporate formalities are ignored and/or personal funds are commingled;
2️⃣ Undercapitalization: Where the shareholders’ monetary investment at the time of formation (and/or insurance coverage) is insufficient to cover foreseeable liabilities; some courts in close corporations look at future debts if foreseeable;
3️⃣ Fraud: Where a corporation is formed to commit fraud or as a mechanism for the shareholders to hide behind to avoid existing obligations; or
4️⃣ Estoppel: Where a shareholder represents that he will be personally liable for corporate debts.
The effect of piercing the corporate veil is that active shareholders will have personal joint + several liability.
💡 Issue-spotting tip: Where piercing or lifting the corporate veil is at issue, the facts often will also raise the issue of promoter liability for pre-incorporation contracts and breaches of fiduciary duties by directors.
This issue often arises in situations where there are few shareholders and courts are more likely to pierce the corporate veil for tortious acts and not for contract issues.
💡 Unlike a contract claimant, a tort victim did not voluntarily choose to transact with the Corporation and did not knowingly assume the risk of limited liability.
✅ Where either de facto Corporation or Corporation by Estoppel are indicated by the facts this may create a defence [Bail promoter out of a position of liability] for the promoter to avoid personal liability.
These 2 doctrines have been abolished in many states, but if they are available here is how they would work.
The “home" state where the corporation is incorporated as a domestic corporation determines which states laws apply to the internal affairs of the Corporation.
California is more liberal in allowing the corporate veil to be pierced than say Nevada where it is more difficult.
Factors that a court may consider when determining whether or not to pierce or lift the corporate veil include the following:
⚖️ Absence or inaccuracy of corporate records;
⚖️ Concealment or misrepresentation of members;
⚖️ Failure to maintain arm's length relationships with related entities;
⚖️ Failure to observe corporate formalities in terms of behavior and documentation;
⚖️ Intermingling of assets of the corporation and of the shareholder;
⚖️ Manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities;
⚖️ Non-functioning corporate officers and/or directors;
⚖️ Significant undercapitalization (or under insurance) of the business entity (capitalization + insurance requirements vary based on industry, location, and specific company circumstances);
⚖️ Siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant shareholder(s);
⚖️ Treatment by an individual of the assets of corporation as his/her own;
⚖️ Was the corporation being used as a "façade" for dominant shareholder(s) personal dealings; alter ego theory;
Important: Not all of these factors need to be met in order for the court to pierce the corporate veil.
Further, some courts might find that one factor is so compelling in a particular case that it will find the shareholders personally liable.
For example: many large corporations do not pay dividends, without any suggestion of corporate impropriety, but particularly for a small or close corporation the failure to pay dividends may suggest financial impropriety.
Example is where a parent Corporation forms a subsidiary to avoid its own obligations. The Court may allow the piercing of the Corporate Veil, so the plaintiff may sue the parent Corporation (go after the parent Corporation's assets).
When a corporation is deemed undercapitalized or insolvent, third-party or outside creditors may be paid off before the claim of a shareholder and esp. a shareholder with a controlling interest who makes a loan to his or her own corporation, thus subordinating the shareholder claims.
This FAQ was prepared by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.
This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.
It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.
We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.