Legal Opinion
In Re the Rules of Professional Conduct
Montana Supreme Court
Decided April 28, 2000No. 98-612PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Leaphart
¶1 In an original application for declaratory judgment, Petitioners assert that insurer-imposed billing rules and procedures violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
¶2 We address the following issues:
¶3 1. May an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana, or admitted pro hac vice, agree to abide by an insurer’s billing and practice rules which impose conditions limiting or directing the scope and extent of the representation of his or her client, the insured?
¶4 2. May an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana, or admitted pro hac vice, be required to submit detailed descriptions of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. Martin SchwimmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- Linde Thomson Langworthy Kohn & Van Dyke, P.C. v. Resolution Trust CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1993
- Palmer v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeMontana Supreme Court · 1993
- Atlanta International Insurance v. BellMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. TraverTexas Supreme Court · 1998
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Shaya B. Pacific, LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Tidyman's Manangement Services Inc. v. DavisMontana Supreme Court · 2014
- Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A.Arizona Supreme Court · 2001
- Barefield v. DPIC Companies, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2004
- Peterson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2010
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.