tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post115376028826863108..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-14152813802175497732007-05-09T14:23:00.000-05:002007-05-09T14:23:00.000-05:00Happened upon this article. Nice job on the facts and the analysis. As you probably know, the Supreme Court accepts very few cases for review. This was one of them. <BR/><BR/>We argued before the Supreme Court on Thursday, May 3, 2007. You can watch the video. Justice Sullivan asked Mr. Young (now judge Young)to comment on Judge Sullivan's (no relation to Justice Sullivan) dissent. We should get a decision sometime within the next 6 months. Most of the focus was on Rule 1.8. <BR/><BR/>Only one point of constructive criticism. The Court of Appeals did not accept the trial court's "standard commercial transaction" exception. Instead, the Court of Appeals said that it was Ligget's burden to show whether Young was excused for dealing with a client by properly advising the client to get independent counsel. We think the burden should be on the attorny, not the client. Thanks for your analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1153770476634051902006-07-24T14:47:00.000-05:002006-07-24T14:47:00.000-05:00That was nice<BR/>Pleasure or pain<BR/>http://mr-president7.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com