|
What is the Class Action Lawsuit Purpose?
In February of '08, FFCHS
hired a lawyer to represent us concerning
the issues of organized stalking and
directed energy weapon torture. These issues at
present are pretty much unknown to the
general public. To those who are Targeted Individuals (TI's), our lives are adversely
affected by the covert, hostile, and
aggressive activities of those perpetrating
these crimes.
Our goals are to seek justice and
compensation for what we have suffered mentally and physically as a result
of the targeting. Those who would like to
join in our lawsuit will first need to fill
out the questionnaire below and send
it to our attorney at:
tisurveys@yahoo.com
or you may send it by postal mail
to:
FFCHS
P.O. Box 9022
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Any questions regarding the lawsuit may be
sent to us at:
info@freedomfchs.com
Targeted Individual Survey
Download PDF Version:
TI Questionnaire
Download Word Version:
TI
Questionnaire
The information requested in this survey is
being gathered in anticipation of litigation
involving organized stalking and directed
energy weapon torture by the US Government
and Corporations.
If you are represented by an attorney in a
similar matter, please do not complete this
form. Instead, you should provide your
counsel’s contact information so that FFCHS
may correspond with them through our
attorney.
Thank you in advance for returning this
completed form. Prompt Involvement will not
only be advantageous for your portion of
this lawsuit but it will also aid us
significantly in gathering data to analyze
for future use. Please remember that you can
submit a survey with complete anonymity.
GUIDELINES FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE FROM OUR
ATTORNEY
This is an excerpt from an
email response to a TI:
At this stage, we are gathering evidence. The decision
on the type of lawsuit will come later as it will be
based on the evidence. I will only proceed in a given
type of lawsuit if the evidence supports the action. I
am working to fit the TIs reports into persuasive
evidence accepted in court, as the legal system diverges
from everyday life.
Please note that polygraphs are tough to bring into
court, so they would be lower on the prioritization of
types of evidence.
Evidence
a) The best evidence is the testimony of government
insiders who can testify about the facts that the
targeting occurred and identify agencies and agents or
contractors.
b) The second best evidence is documents that refer to
these programs.
c) The third best evidence is video
and photographs showing agents directing weapons or
surveillance at TIs.
d) Other types of evidence that would establish a link
between the agents and the TIs are most helpful.
e) Another category of evidence is to establish the
targeting itself, and include test results supporting
use of radiological, electromagnetic and other types of
weapons, as well as other witnesses, TI observations and
recordings, etc.
f) Yet another type of evidence is the medical evidence
of the injuries from the targeting, and the testimony of
supportive doctors.
Attorney Jonathan Wilson Appeals to Senator
Patrick Leahy
Download PDF Version:
Attorney
Wilson's Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy
WILSON LAW CENTER LLC
Jonathan O. Wilson, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1102
Morrison, Colorado 80465
(720) 219-8366
Fax: (303) 697-1189
Jon.wilson.law@hotmail.com
www.WilsonLawCenter.com
March 31, 2008
Sen. Patrick
Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator:
I represent Freedom from Covert Harassment
and Surveillance, an organization with
several hundred members around the country
and internationally who have reason to
believe they are targeted with various
non-lethal weapons. These targeted
individuals suffer physical and
psychological symptoms as a result of the
remote manipulation. We seek your office’s
assistance in initiating hearings and a
fact-finding congressional inquiry into the
government agencies and/or private companies
that are targeting citizens. Many citizens
are desperate to be freed from the
disturbing, intrusive and oppressive
targeting.
Evidence supports the conclusion that
weapons exist that could be used against
individuals, based on U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office filings, public releases by
agencies, and other technologies that
indicate the level of technological
sophistication. The weapons are believed to
be based on electromagnetism, microwaves,
sonic waves, lasers and other types of
directed energy, and were characterized as
“psychotronic” in Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s
draft of House Resolution 2977, the Space
Preservation Act of 2001. Furthermore, it is
undeniable that government agencies have
tested citizens without permission in the
past; for example, the CIA’s human
experimentation discussed in Orlikow v.
U.S., 682 F.Supp. 77 (D.D.C. 1988),
secretly administered lysergic acid
diethylamide discussed in United States
v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), and
military chemical experimentation as
discussed in Congressional Committee
Report 103-97, 103d Congress, 2d Session, S.
Prt. 103-97 (Dec. 8, 1994). Lastly, the
sheer numbers of people complaining of being
targeted, including people with
post-graduate degrees and a lifetime of
achievements, and the similarities in
symptoms tend to outweigh a dismissive
response based on charges of anecdotal
evidence or group paranoia.
Several plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs
have filed suits in the past levying similar
charges of directed weaponry, but, to my
knowledge, all have been dismissed due to
immunity and state secret defenses, and the
lack of evidence of a direct link to
agencies or companies. It is difficult to
legally prove targeting by psychotronic
weapons when the perpetrators operate from
remote, unseen locations and therefore the
targeting can be dismissed as delusional.
Given the wide scope of alleged targeting,
there is a certain risk of sounding too
conspiratorial, however, common denominators
such as physical symptoms and medical
reports, surveillance scenarios, harassment
techniques, and more can be readily
established.
Freedom from Covert Harassment and
Surveillance will gladly provide your
office, and any legislator and investigator,
reports from targeted individuals
documenting instances of targeting, medical
documentation, and recordings. This firm
will provide research and investigation
results upon request as well. We will
diligently work with anyone willing to help.
Please carefully consider convening hearings
and an inquiry and collaborating with other
legislators in an effort to uncover and stop
this inhumane practice.
Very truly yours,
Jonathan Wilson
Attorney for Freedom from Covert
Harassment and Surveillance
Attorney Jonathan Wilson Appeals to Medical
Providers
This letter is one that targeted individuals
should present to their doctor that may
allow you to have an open and productive
discussion about your targeting and may be
of significant help in the event of
involuntary confinement to a mental
facility.
Download PDF Version:
Attorney Wilson's Letter to TI Medical
Providers
WILSON LAW CENTER LLC
Jonathan O. Wilson, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1102
Morrison, Colorado 80465
(720) 219-8366
Fax: (303) 697-1189
Jon.wilson.law@hotmail.com
www.WilsonLawCenter.com
April 9, 2008
Freedom from Covert
Harassment and Surveillance
P.O. Box 9022
Cincinnati, Ohio 45209
Re: Letter explaining
factual and legal background to medical
providers
Dear Sir or Madam:
This law firm represents
Freedom from Covert Harassment and
Surveillance ("Freedom"), an organization
with several hundred members around the
country and internationally who have reason
to believe they are targeted with various
non-lethal weapons. Freedom is currently
communicating with legislators in order to
institute hearings and investigations of the
numerous abuses of citizens.
The purpose of this letter
is to inform medical providers of the
factual and legal background behind many
complaints of physical and psychological
symptoms that patients relate to non-lethal
weapons. It has come to our attention that
medical providers often dismiss these
allegations as unrealistic and false and
attribute them to mental instability. It is
difficult to legally prove targeting by
psychotronic weapons when the perpetrators
operate from remote, unseen locations and
therefore the targeting can be dismissed as
delusional. Given the wide scope of alleged
targeting, there is a certain risk of
sounding too conspiratorial, however, common
denominators exist, such as similar physical
and psychological claims, surveillance
scenarios, and harassment techniques.
We strongly urge you to not
summarily dismiss a patient’s claims of
being targeted with non-lethal, directed
energy weapons for the following reasons:
Evidence supports
the conclusion that weapons exist
that could be used against
individuals, based on U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office filings, public
releases by agencies, and other
technologies that indicate the level
of technological sophistication. The
weapons are believed to be based on
electromagnetism, microwaves, sonic
waves, lasers and other types of
directed energy, and were
characterized as "psychotronic" in
Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s draft of
House Resolution 2977, the Space
Preservation Act of 2001.
Furthermore, it is
undeniable that government agencies
have tested citizens without
permission in the past; for example,
the CIA’s human experimentation
discussed in Orlikow v. U.S.,
682 F.Supp. 77 (D.D.C. 1988),
secretly administered lysergic acid
diethylamide discussed in United
States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669
(1987), and military chemical
experimentation as discussed in
Congressional Committee Report
103-97, 103d Congress, 2d Session,
S. Prt. 103-97 (Dec. 8, 1994).
Lastly, the sheer
numbers of people complaining of
being targeted, including people
with post-graduate degrees and a
lifetime of achievements, and the
similarities in symptoms, tend to
outweigh a dismissive response based
on charges of anecdotal evidence or
group paranoia.
Therefore, we urge you to at
least consider the possibility of symptoms
resulting from radiation, electromagnetism,
sonic energy, other unusual types of energy,
as well as psychological symptoms resulting
from intentional harassment.
Very truly yours,
Jon Wilson
Provide Contacts that are
Supportive
Hi all,
Following is a start to the list of people
and organizations I plan to contact
regarding: 1) documents, recordings or
tangible evidence indicating use against
non-consenting subjects of various types of
electromagnetic, microwave, laser,
acoustic, sonic, electronic and other
non-lethal, psychotronic or direct
energy weapons; and 2) people who worked in
a government agency or contracting company
who have disclosed targeting of individuals.
Please provide me names and contact
information of individuals and organizations
who you believe may have knowledge of
physical evidence or insiders. I
also will be contacting politicians who may
know of evidence or who are sympathetic to
the cause.
POLITICIANS
1. Congressmen who supported Dennis
Kucinich's Space Preservation Act HR 2420
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] -
5/18/2005
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 5/18/2005
Rep Brown, Sherrod [OH-13] - 5/26/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] -
5/18/2005
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 5/18/2005
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 5/18/2005
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 5/18/2005
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 5/26/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] -
5/18/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] -
5/18/2005
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 5/18/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] -
5/18/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] -
5/18/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 5/18/2005
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] -
5/26/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 5/18/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] -
5/18/2005
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4] -
5/18/2005
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] -
5/18/2005
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] -
5/18/2005
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/18/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 5/18/2005
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 5/26/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] -
5/18/2005
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] -
5/18/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 5/26/2005
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] -
5/18/2005
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] -
5/18/2005
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] -
5/18/2005
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] -
5/26/2005
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] -
5/26/2005
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 5/18/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] -
5/18/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] -
5/18/2005
2. Diane Digette, Colo. Rep.
3. Sen. John Glenn - Ohio
4. Gary Ackerman - Rep.
INDIVIDUALS
Alan Scheflin, law professor
Dr. Rauni Leena Kilde, MD, Finland
W. Samadhi:
SamadhiW@aol.com
John C. Syer, Professor of Government, CSU-Sacramento,
6000 J. Street, Sacramento, CA. 95819
Bernard Fensterwald III, Fensterwald & Alcorn P.C., 1952
Gallows Road, Suite 307, Vienna, Virginia 22182.
Steven Hale, Georgia Univ.
ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH TARGETED INDIVIDUALS
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON OFFENSIVE MICROWAVE WEAPONS
Microwave Mind Control Tim Rifat, The Truth Campaign, UK
Angelic Harp Foundation
2219 Lexford LN.
Houston, Texas 77080-5216
713-461-0623
Fax: 713-461-0091
http://angelicharpfoundation.org
Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics
P.O. Box 73481
Davis, CA 95617-3481 USA
Fax: 205. 449. 3119
COPUS
Committee on the Public Understanding of Science
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG
United Kingdom
Fax +44 (0)20 7839 5561
http://www.copus.org.uk
Federation of American Scientists
1717 K St., NW Suite 209
Washington, DC 20036
Voice: (202)546-3300
Fax: (202)675-1010
http://www.fas.org
The Lay Institute
Nick Begich, Executive Director
Dallas, Texas
info@layinstitute.org
Mind Justice
46
Cheryl Welsh, Executive Director
E-mail:
welsh@mindjustice.org
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Signalistgatan
9 SE-169 70
Solna Sweden
Phone: +46-8-655 97 00
Fax: +46-8-655 97 33
E-mail: sipri@sipri.org
Sunshine Project Germany
The Sunshine Project
Scheplerstrasse 78
22767 Hamburg
Germany
Phone: +49 40 431 88 001
Fax: +49 40 67 50 39 88
Sunshine Project USA
PO Box 41987
Austin TX 78704
USA
Phone/Fax: +1 512 494 0545
http://www.sunshine-project.org
World Transhumanist Association
PO Box 128
Willington CT 06279 USA
http://www.transhumanism.org
Thanks,
Jon Wilson
Attorney at Law
tisurveys@yahoo.com
Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.13.
Organization As Client
Letter II: Scope of my representation
I've attached and pasted below a Colorado
ethical rule relating to my representation
of FFCHS. I just want you all to understand
that I represent the organization, I have a
duty to take action if any member of FFCHS
may take action that would substantially
harm FFCHS, I have duties if any violation
of law occurs, and I can only represent
individual members of FFCHS after consent by
an FFCHS officer. So, you can see how I do
not represent each member individually, but
rather the organization.
Nothing specific has happened that causes me
to write this. I only want to be sure you
all understand what my legal duties are, as
more and more members contact me directly.
Also, attorneys' ethical rules are different
from the rules of other professions in that
I can lose my license, be fined, and other
penalties for violating an ethical rule.
I also would like the following message
posted on the website:
Please note that the Wilson Law Center
represents Freedom from Covert Harassment
and Surveillance as an organization. The
firm will not represent individual members
unless written consent is obtained from the
board members. If you are already
represented by an attorney in a matter
related to targeting, please do not contact
Wilson Law Center directly. Attorneys may
not communicate with a represented client
under ethical rules. Instead, you may
request your attorney contact Wilson Law
Center. Thank you for your understanding.
Thanks,
Jon Wilson
Attorney at Law
Wilson Law Center LLC
PO Box 1102, Morrison, CO 80465
720-219-8366
Fax: 303-697-1189
jon.wilson.law@hotmail.com
www.WilsonLawCenter.com
RULE 1.13. ORGANIZATION AS CLIENT
(a)
A lawyer employed or retained by an
organization represents the organization
acting through its duly authorized
constituents.
(b)
If a lawyer for an organization knows that
an officer, employee or other person
associated with the organization is engaged
in action, intends to act or refuses to act
in a matter related to the representation
that is a violation of a legal obligation to
the organization, or a violation of law that
reasonably might be imputed to the
organization, and is likely to result in
substantial injury to the organization, the
lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably
necessary in the best interest of the
organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably
believes that it is not necessary in the
best interest of the organization to do so,
the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher
authority in the organization, including, if
warranted by the circumstances, to the
highest authority that can act on behalf of
the organization as determined by applicable
law.
(c)
Except as provided in paragraph (d), if
(1)
despite the lawyer’s efforts in accordance
with paragraph (b) the highest authority
that can act on behalf of the organization
insists upon or fails to address in a timely
and appropriate manner an action, or a
refusal to act, that is clearly a violation
of law, and
(2)
the lawyer reasonably believes that the
violation is reasonably certain to result in
substantial injury to the organization, then
the lawyer may reveal information relating
to the representation whether or not Rule
1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and
to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes
necessary to prevent substantial injury to
the organization.
(d)
Paragraph (c) shall not apply with respect
to the information relating to a lawyer’s
representation of an organization to
investigate an alleged violation of law, or
to defend the organization or an officer,
employee or other constituent associated
with the organization against a claim
arising out of an alleged violation of law.
(e)
A lawyer who reasonably believes that he or
she has been discharged because of the
lawyer’s actions taken pursuant to paragraph
(b) or (c), or who withdraws under
circumstances that require or permit the
lawyer to take action under either of those
paragraphs, shall proceed as the lawyer
reasonably believes necessary to assure that
the organization’s highest authority is
informed of the lawyer’s discharge or
withdrawal.
(f)
In dealing with an organization’s directors,
officers, employees, members, shareholders
or other constituents, a lawyer shall
explain the identity of the client when the
lawyer knows or reasonably should know that
the organization’s interests are adverse to
those of the constituents with whom the
lawyer is dealing.
(g)
A lawyer representing an organization may
also represent any of its directors,
officers, employees, members, shareholders
or other constituents, subject to the
provisions of Rule 1.7. If the
organization’s consent to the dual
representation is required by Rule 1.7, the
consent shall be given by an appropriate
official of the organization other than the
individual who is to be represented, or by
the shareholders.
COMMENT
The Entity as the Client
[1]
An organizational client is a legal entity,
but it cannot act except through its
officers, directors, employees, shareholders
and other constituents. Officers, directors,
employees and shareholders are the
constituents of the corporate organizational
client. The duties defined in this Comment
apply equally to unincorporated
associations. “Other constituents” as used
in this Comment means the positions
equivalent to officers, directors, employees
and shareholders held by persons acting for
organizational clients that are not
corporations.
[2]
When one of the constituents of an
organizational client communicates with the
organization’s lawyer in that person’s
organizational capacity, the communication
is protected by Rule 1.6. Thus, by way of
example, if an organizational client
requests its lawyer to investigate
allegations of wrongdoing, interviews made
in the course of that investigation between
the lawyer and the client’s employees or
other constituents are covered by Rule 1.6.
This does not mean, however, that
constituents of an organizational client are
the clients of the lawyer. The lawyer may
not disclose to such constituents
information relating to the representation
except for disclosures explicitly or
impliedly authorized by the organizational
client in order to carry out the
representation or as otherwise permitted by
Rule 1.6.
[3]
When constituents of the organization make
decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily
must be accepted by the lawyer even if their
utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions
concerning policy and operations, including
ones entailing serious risk, are not as such
in the lawyer’s province. Paragraph (19)
makes clear, however, that, when the lawyer
knows that the organization is likely to be
substantially injured by action of an
officer or other constituent that violates a
legal obligation to the organization or is
in violation of law that might be imputed to
the organization, the lawyer must proceed as
is reasonably necessary in the best interest
of the organization. As defined in Rule
1.0(f), knowledge can be inferred from
circumstances, and a lawyer cannot ignore
the obvious.
[4]
In determining how to proceed under
paragraph (b), the lawyer should give due
consideration to the seriousness of the
violation and its consequences, the
responsibility in the organization and the
apparent motivation of the person involved,
the policies of the organization concerning
such matters, and any other relevant
considerations. Ordinarily, referral to a
higher authority would be necessary. In some
circumstances, however, it may be
appropriate for the lawyer to ask the
constituent to reconsider the matter; for
example, if the circumstances involve a
constituent’s innocent misunderstanding of
law and subsequent acceptance of the
lawyer’s advice, the lawyer may reasonably
conclude that the best interest of the
organization does not require that the
matter be referred to higher authority. If a
constituent persists in conduct contrary to
the lawyer’s advice, it will be necessary
for the lawyer to take steps to have the
matter reviewed by a higher authority in the
organization. If the matter is of sufficient
seriousness and importance or urgency to the
organization, referral to higher authority
in the organization may be necessary even if
the lawyer has not communicated with the
constituent. Any measures taken should, to
the extent practicable, minimize the risk of
revealing information relating to the
representation to persons outside the
organization. Even in circumstances where a
lawyer is not obligated by Rule 1.13 to
proceed, a lawyer may bring to the attention
of an organizational client, including its
highest authority, matters that the lawyer
reasonably believes to be of sufficient
importance to warrant doing so in the best
interest of the organization.
[5]
Paragraph (b) also makes clear that when it
is reasonably necessary to enable the
organization to address the matter in a
timely and appropriate manner, the lawyer
must refer the matter to higher authority,
including, if warranted by the
circumstances, the highest authority that
can act on behalf of the organization under
applicable law. The organization’s highest
authority to whom a matter may be referred
ordinarily will be the board of directors or
similar governing body. However, applicable
law may prescribe that under certain
conditions the highest authority reposes
elsewhere, for example, in the independent
directors of a corporation.
Relation to Other Rules
[6]
The authority and responsibility provided in
this Rule are concurrent with the authority
and responsibility provided in other Rules.
In particular, this Rule does not limit or
expand the lawyer’s responsibility under
Rules 1.8, 1.16, 3.3 or 4.1. Paragraph (c)
of this Rule supplements Rule 1.6(b) by
providing an additional basis upon which the
lawyer may reveal information relating to
the representation, but does not modify,
restrict, or limit the provisions of Rule
1.6(b)(1) – (7). Under paragraph (c) the
lawyer may reveal such information only when
the organization’s highest authority insists
upon or fails to address threatened or
ongoing action that is clearly a violation
of law, and then only to the extent the
lawyer reasonably believes necessary to
prevent reasonably certain substantial
injury to the organization. It is not
necessary that the lawyer’s services be used
in furtherance of the violation, but it is
required that the matter be related to the
lawyer’s representation of the organization.
If the lawyer’s services are being used by
an organization to further a crime or fraud
by the organization, Rules 1.6(b)(2),
1.6(b)(3) and 1.6(b)(4) may permit the
lawyer to disclose confidential information.
In such circumstances Rule 1.2(d) may also
be applicable, in which event, withdrawal
from the representation under Rule
1.16(a)(1) may be required.
[7]
Paragraph (d) makes clear that the authority
of a lawyer to disclose information relating
to a representation in circumstances
described in paragraph (c) does not apply
with respect to information relating to a
lawyer’s engagement by an organization to
investigate an alleged violation of law or
to defend the organization or an officer,
employee or other person associated with the
organization against a client arising out of
an alleged violation of law. This is
necessary in order to enable organizational
clients to enjoy the full benefits of legal
counsel in conducting an investigation or
defending against a claim.
[8]
A lawyer who reasonably believes that he or
she has been discharged because of the
lawyer’s actions taken pursuant to paragraph
(b) or (c), or who withdraws in
circumstances that require or permit the
lawyer to take action under either of these
paragraphs, must proceed as the lawyer
reasonably believes necessary to assure that
the organization’s highest authority is
informed of the lawyer’s discharge or
withdrawal.
Government Agency
[9]
The duty defined in this Rule applies to
governmental organizations. Defining
precisely the identity of the client and
prescribing the resulting obligations of
such lawyers may be more difficult in the
government context and is a matter beyond
the scope of these Rules. See Scope [18].
Although in some circumstances the client
may be a specific agency, it may also be a
branch of government, such as the executive
branch, or the government as a whole. For
example, if the action or failure to act
involves the head of a bureau, either the
department of which the bureau is a part or
the relevant branch of government may be the
client for purposes of this Rule. Moreover,
in a matter involving the conduct of
government officials, a government lawyer
may have authority under applicable law to
question such conduct more extensively than
that of a lawyer for a private organization
in similar circumstances. Thus, when the
client is a governmental organization, a
different balance may be appropriate between
maintaining confidentiality and assuring
that the wrongful act is prevented or
rectified, for public business is involved.
In addition, duties of lawyers employed by
the government or lawyers in military
service may be defined by statutes and
regulation. This Rule does not limit that
authority. See Scope.
Clarifying the Lawyer’s Role
[10]
There are times when the organization’s
interest may be or become adverse to those
of one or more of its constituents. In such
circumstances the lawyer should advise any
constituent, whose interest the lawyer finds
adverse to that of the organization of the
conflict or potential conflict of interest,
that the lawyer cannot represent such
constituent, and that such person may wish
to obtain independent representation. Care
must be taken to assure that the individual
understands that, when there is such
adversity of interest, the lawyer for the
organization cannot provide legal
representation for that constituent
individual, and that discussions between the
lawyer for the organization and the
individual may not be privileged.
[11]
Whether such a warning should be given by
the lawyer for the organization to any
constituent individual may turn on the facts
of each case.
Dual Representation
[12]
Paragraph (g) recognizes that a lawyer for
an organization may also represent a
principal officer or major shareholder.
Derivative Actions
[13]
Under generally prevailing law, the
shareholders or members of a corporation may
bring suit to compel the directors to
perform their legal obligations in the
supervision of the organization. Members of
unincorporated associations have essentially
the same right. Such an action may be
brought nominally by the organization, but
usually is, in fact, a legal controversy
over management of the organization.
[14]
The question can arise whether counsel for
the organization may defend such an action.
The proposition that the organization is the
lawyer’s client does not alone resolve the
issue. Most derivative actions are a normal
incident of an organization’s affairs, to be
defended by the organization’s lawyer like
any other suit. However, if the claim
involves serious charges of wrongdoing by
those in control of the organization, a
conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty
to the organization and the lawyer’s
relationship with the board. In those
circumstances, Rule 1.7 governs who should
represent the directors and the
organization. |
