Pursuant to
Part 130 , attorneys are obligated to undertake an investigation of a case. But is an attorney responsible for ignorance of facts which the client neglected to disclose?
“No,” says the Commercial Division.
In a recent decision by Justice Andrew Borrok, the Commercial Division discussed this very issue. In
Morgan and Mendel Genomics v Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP, Albert Einstein College of Medicine (“Einstein”) hired the law firm of Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP (“Defendant”) to assist Einstein in obtaining a patent for its new genetic testing technology, invented by Einstein employees, Dr. Ostrer and Mr. Loke. By way of background, the publication date of the technology is critical because it starts the
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
This morning, I used a pen that I got at a conference last year (I really do miss in-person conferences) from a law firm service provider. It’s my favorite pen. It writes perfectly, it never leaks, it has the perfect consistency and it is a bright color, so I can always find it in my purse.
On the flip side, I have another pen, from a top 10 AmLaw-ranked firm with profits of more than $3 million per partner per year that ran out of ink the second time I used it. It’s flimsy and plastic. I was surprised that a firm of this caliber would give out hundreds of these pens to their clients, recruits and prospects.