Financial Interest
A law firm not only represented a financial advisor client, but also had a financial interest in that client's business. The client committed fraud against its investors when it used the investor's funds in an elaborate Ponzi scheme (in which the original investors were paid off with funds put up by later investors). The law firm, despite having no knowledge of its client's fraud, appeared to benefit from the fraudulent activity activity as a result of its financial interest in the client. The investors sued the law firm for aiding and abetting its client in perpetrating the scheme, and the case eventually settled for more than $15 million.

Misplaced File
On two separate occasions, an attorney declined to represent a woman seeking his services in a retaliatory discharge suit against her former employer. The attorney did, however, agree to assist her in getting her old job back, and she retained his services on a limited, hourly basis. The attorney wrote the woman's employer on her behalf, but he did not follow up because the attorney lost the client's file. Eight months after the letter was sent, the attorney informed his client he would not be able to help her. As a result, the attorney's former client registered a complaint against him with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee. The attorney may be found to have breached his duties to the client by misplacing her file.

GARA Act
An attorney was sued by a client who hired him to represent her in a wrongful death suit filed on behalf of her deceased husband. The plaintiff's husband was killed in an aviation accident. Eight months after the accident, the GARA Act was passed. The Act bars suits against manufacturers of light planes over 18 years old - the type of plane in which the plaintiff's husband was killed. The plaintiff sued her attorney because she alleges he accepted her retainer before the statute of limitations had run out, but he filed after the Act was passed. The attorney maintains the Act was put into effect with little publicity and he was not aware of its enactment. When his action was dismissed, he did appeal contesting the retroactive application of the GARA Act to an existing claim. While the appeal is still pending, the attorney may be liable for misconduct, depending on the amount of advance publicity that passage of the Act received.