Saturday, March 8, 2008

Disqualifying Fannick: Sheinkopfv v. Stone

In Sheinkopfv v. Stone 927 F.2d 1259 (C.A.t (Mass.) 1991), the court wrote, “An attorney-client relationship may be implied “when (1) a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney, (2) the advice or assistance sought pertains to matters within the attorney’s professional competence, and (3) the attorney expressly or impliedly agrees to give or actually gives the desired advice or assistance.... Inappropriate cases the third element may be established by proof of detrimental reliance, when the person seeking legal services reasonably relies on the attorney to provide them and the attorney,aware of such reliance, does nothing to negate it. Citing DeVaux v. American Home Assur. Co. 387 Mass. 814, 444 N.E.2d 355, 357(1983)(quoting Kurtenbach v. TeKippe 260 N.W.2d 53, 56 (Iowa 1977). “We proceed to apply this tripartite test to the properly documented facts, viewing the record, as Rule 56 demands, in the light most congenial to appellant.”)

Attorney Fannick began a media defense of Mr. Kerekes. Given the length and number of visits with Mr. Kerekes, it was reasonable for Mr. Kerekes to believe that Attorney Fannick was representing him.