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.
If you have not already provided the information required for Blue Ocean Law Group to conduct a Conflict of Interest Check, please follow the instructions provided in our automated process here which also includes information on alternative methods.
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.
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:
Great service by james, very quick and minimal charges, glad to find Blue Ocean Law Group online. Definitely recommend to anyone and everyone for online law services. Thanks JAMES.
After having received outrageous quotes from other firms, and wasting my money paying what I wasn't meant to pay, I finally found Blue Ocean Law Group online. Real people, solved my problem with empathy, communication, honesty and above all, professionality. A special thanks to James Ford. I will definitely keep this law firm in mind for any further issues, and highly recommend them if you want problems solved!! Thank you.
blueocean.law has awesome legal docs + legal wizards/services on its website! Especially its FREE U.S. Non-Immigrant Visa Application Legal Wizard [Global] which is right on point for my current business needs.
Meeting with James was a pleasure, I experienced something truly exceptional, and I can't help but share my enthusiasm through this review. The service I received was impeccable. James was not only highly professional but also genuinely friendly, making me feel like a valued client throughout that moment.
blueocean.law's website is an incredible treasure trove of information! The depth and clarity of the content provided are truly impressive. It's evident that a lot of effort and expertise has gone into curating such a valuable resource. Thank you for creating a platform that’s engaging and very informative. Highly recommended.
They were very knowledgeable and provided me with valuable information. Attention to detail was not limited, yet without sacrificing substance for style. In conclusion, our meeting provided an unforgettable experience, and the knowledge that I received was something truly remarkable. Highly recommended.
This thought-provoking article underscores the often overlooked yet profoundly important aspect of estate planning – the ethical will or legacy letter – adding depth and significance to the process of passing down not just assets, but personal values and wisdom.
This eye-opening article offers a comprehensive overview of the significant changes in Australian Employment Law for 2023, emphasizing the potential impact on businesses and employees and highlighting the need for adaptability and compliance in this evolving landscape.
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.
Subscribe for FREE access to our growing list of [350+] personal and/or business legal documents.View Pricing