Legal Opinion
Matter of Marra
Montana Supreme Court
Decided January 27, 2004No. 02-147PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*214OPINION AND ORDER
¶1 On April 22, 2003, the Montana Supreme Court Commission on Practice (the Commission) filed its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation regarding the Complaint filed against Respondent Joseph Marra (Marra). The Commission concluded that Marra violated Rule 1.10 of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (M.R.P.C.), when he and his firm undertook dual representation of two clients who were directly adverse and Marra failed to make *215appropriate inquiries about the clients’ consent to the dual representation. The Commission unanimously recommended that Marra…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Coalition for Canyon Preservation v. Karl S. Bowers, Administrator, Federal Highway AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Schuff v. A.T. Klemens & SonMontana Supreme Court · 2000
- Grievance Committee v. RottnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
- Goldstein v. Commission on Practice of the Supreme CourtMontana Supreme Court · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Krutzfeldt Ranch, LLC v. Pinnacle BankMontana Supreme Court · 2012
- In re PottsMontana Supreme Court · 2007
- Matter of MarraMontana Supreme Court · 2004