Is the following considered ethical or acceptable behavior for a law firm?
<p>plaintiff commences litigation. This could require up to three proceedings, call them A, B, and C, that are customarily run in sequence, that is, one after another. That is, if plaintiff wins A, there is no need to pursue B, and if the plaintiff loses both A and B, there is no point in pursuing C.</p>

<p>A judge in jurisdiction Y disclaims jurisdiction, citing jurisdiction X's priority. So the law firm appeals in jurisdiction Y. Meanwhile a judge in jurisdiction X advises plaintiff not to proceed with the underlying case, until he decides whether or not the defendant has the "standing" to be sued in its jurisdiction.</p>

<p>The law firm runs all three proceedings simultaneously (the appeal in jurisdiction Y, the standing case in jurisdiction X, and the underlying case in jurisdiction X). The effect is that it is collecting all three sets of fees, when the judges have advised the plaintiff to proceed with one proceeding at a time. Is this considered ethical or acceptable behavior? Is there anything the client can do to discourage this?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The law firm starts all three proceedings simultaneously in order to collect all three sets of fees. Is this considered ethical or acceptable behavior?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. The client would have to knowingly and willfully consent to that.</p>

<p>No procedural or substantive law requires a party to retain the same attorney(s) in related or unrelated proceedings. In fact, a party is entitled to switch lawyers or dismiss his attorney(s) even in the course of any one set of proceedings. Thus, besides arrogant, the attorney's assumption that the party will retain him for all proceedings is unfounded and therefore <em>unreasonable</em>. <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_5_fees/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 1.5 of professional conduct</a> discourages the act of collecting unreasonable fees.</p>

<p>More specifically, item (a)(5) of rule 1.5 refers to "<em>time limitations imposed [...] by the circumstances</em>". Here, the contingency upon which proceedings B and C are premised is clearly a circumstance that affects the timing --and even the pertinence or pointlessness-- for starting proceedings B and C.</p>

<p>Therefore, an act which (1) the attorney knows --or should know-- is unreasonable, and (2) yet he simultaneously knows with all certainty that it will increase attorney fees is unethical and unacceptable.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there anything the client can do to discourage this?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The client might want to remind the attorney or law firm of the aforementioned rule 1.5, and/or that the client has not decided who he would retain for subsequent proceedings B and C. Regardless, if the attorney needs a reminder to that effect, that would be a red flag.</p>

united-states lawyer