When All Post 1932 Labor Laws Was Eliminated

When an act is into a lawsuit and goes into a trial, it is litigation[1]. It could also be described as settling of any dispute between two parties involving steps and court trial. After the consecutive trials and appeal (if necessary), an ultimate resolution in the particular dispute is given by the jury, judge, or the court. However, before the point of any litigation process, the plaintiff, who is the complainant, and the defendant, who is the person allegedly the verdict, should resolve the disagreement in any certain steps and action that is out of the legal law[2]. A peacetalk or a negotiation and truce could be some options. But if the case would not be able to resolve, litigation process would now then be necessary.

In Minnesota, there are such rules made to govern the litigation process, civil or not. The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, just amended last July 1, 2007, is the one being followed by the state of the Minnesota[3]. There are specific rules indicated in the conduct that is very necessary and vital in the process of litigation. One of these rules is the Rule 1.2, which is entitled “Scope of Representation[4].” Assuming that two parties, (two individuals) are in civil litigation, this only means that between the client and the lawyer, there should always a consultation by which the limitation of the details to be presented are discussed.

This is also to tackle which subject matter or matters is or are to be included in the in the litigation. It is very important in pursuing a litigation process so that the important details are the only ones to be highlighted in the trial court. By complying in this rule, null events and matter irrelevant to the main case could be eliminated so as to avoid misleading accusations and statement. These misleading accusations and statements, often times, worsen the dispute, thus, the litigation did not arrive at its real purpose.

Another rule, which is important in litigation, is the Rule 1.4, which is entitled “Communication.[5]” In this rule, the client has the right to be always get an update regarding the case so as to know the development and any flaws, if there are any. With this, any problem and obstruction of settlement of the dispute could be given by early resolution or alternative way so that the litigation process could pursue smoothly.

Not only the client and the lawyer should always communicate but also both opposing parties should have communication in case of any agreement that could be made outside the court. This could make the litigation process faster and peacefully if any negotiation or talk between the opposing parties occurs. This is also to know the status of the litigation if it needs longer time, such that, there are still many hard facts needed in the case.

Another rule included in the Professional conduct is the Rule 1.6 which is entitled “Confidentiality[6].” This means that any information or any personality involved in the case should be in its anonymity unless permitted to be spoken out by name. It is because any revelation of requested unknown name or information sources might worsen the case, especially if the case is very sensitive. It may prolong the litigation process and interrupt the whole trial.  In any case of revelation, there should always be a permission from the client or any concerned person or group of people.

This is to avoid any threat from the side of the unknown entity in the case. There are such cases that the source of information (assuming that he is a person), if being known in the trial, receives life threat which could trauma the third party. In this case, the other prospect witness that might be a good help in solving the case might be frightened to come out since there is already an incident of threat to the third party being known in the court.

Further, another rule in the Minnesota General Rule of Professional Conduct is the Rule 1.7, which is entitled “Conflict of Interest: General Rule.[7]” This rule pertains to the loyalty of the lawyer to the client. It is very important, in resolving any case, to trust the lawyer by its client. The lawyer is the one to represent the side of the client, thus, all information needed in the resolution of the case should be given full hand to the lawyer. On the side of the lawyer, there should not be an act of bribery from the opponent.

The lawyer should neither present both parties nor secretly negotiating with the opposing party to convey the plans, evidences, and hard facts to be presented in the trial. In litigation process, both parties contended should not act of cheating so as to avoid complications in the case. It might be an opening of another if the court find out the under the table negotiation of the lawyer (i.e. if the client, whose lawyer get caught in a bribery act, demands another case and pursue the bribery case against the lawyer). Thus, in this case, in any act of cheating and dishonesty, it could lead to another trial, which could prolong and start another litigation process. Another expense for both parties, thus, is needed.

Above rules that were mentioned all falls to the “Lawyer-Client” relationship. In the litigation process, there are also important rules which are already behind the “Lawyer-Client” negotiation[8].

One of the rules that is already of the “Lawyer-Client” relationship is the Rule 2.1, which is entitled as “Advisor.[9]” The lawyer would not only act as only representative or consultant of the lawyer, nut also an advisor in any concern of the client in the case. In this case, this rule is very important, such that it could relate to the Rule 1. 4. Being an advisor, the lawyer must not only look at the angle of the case in accordance to the law or what had really happened to the two parties. There could be other reasons why the dispute was established. In defending the case (and the side of the client), several aspects and anlges should also be considered.

These aspects are moral, socio-economic, or even political. It would already depend upon the status of the case, the client, and the lawyer on how these aspects would be helpful in giving resolution in the dispute. By looking at these aspects in its different angles, there could be some evidences, offenses (in the side of the opponent), or defenses that could be derived to further help the litigation settled.

Another rule is the Rule 2.2 which is entitled “Intermediary.[10]” This rule encompassed the lawyer as the mediator of the opposing parties, despite the fact that the lawyer also represents the client. This rule might be found ironic to the Rule 1.7, which indicates the loyalty to the client. The intermediary word here means that the lawyer should also have initiated a talk or negotiation or communication either to the opponent party.

However, the lawyer should not intervene with personal interest in the conflict to avoid personal bias and decision. He or she could still talk to the opponent, especially if there are matters to be settled in the level outside the trial court. It may proceeds the litigation process faster as long as the negotiation and intermediating being done by the lawyer(s) are objectively and without hidden personal interest.

Moreover, the Rule 3.1 which is entitled “Meritorious Claims and Contentions[11]” could also be considered important in the litigation process. This also goes along with the Rule 9.06 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, which is entitled “Definitions.[12]” In these rules, assertion of the side of the client, there should be always bases and hard evidences. An argument should always be based on facts and real events for the better modification of the resolution throughout the litigation process.

There are such claims that could be misinterpreted by the juries or any party involved in the litigation process. There should always be an exact definition of the words being spoken out from the word of the defendant, complainant, or witnesses. It is because if the statements are not clarified, this may lead to another case of libel or slander.

This would prolong the litigation process. And in case of falsify documents, facts from hasty generalization, that are being presented; this could be a cause of incredible resolution or error in the litigation process. Thus, to avoid such cases, the rules which indicated honesty and not fraudulent act should always be followed. The Rule 4.1 entitled “Truthfulness in statements to Other[13]” has also the same content. It complies with the litigation process in a way of honesty of any facts and statements presented in the trial.

There are also rules for the “Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal[14]” included in the Rule 3.5 which encompassed that the tribunal court that is handling the case should be impartial throughout the litigation so as to avoid biased result and resolution to the case.

Generally, these rules are considered in civil litigation among other rules because they are all contesting any wrong act in the side of the lawyer, the client, and the tribunal court. This is for the faster pacing of the trial so as to become more efficient litigation process could be done.

[1] Answers.com Business and Finance. Accessed date August 24, 2007. http://www.answers.com/tooic/litigation-2?cat=biz-fin [2] Answers.com Business and Finance. Accessed date August 24, 2007. http://www.answers.com/tooic/litigation-2?cat=biz-fin [3] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [4] [4] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html>

[5] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [6] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [7] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [8] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [9] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [10] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct(Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [11] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct (Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [12] Minnesota General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, Title I. Rules Applicable to All Court Proceedings. Minnesota Supreme Court  Commissioners Office. Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.mncourts.gov/rules/general./GRtitleI.htm#g906> [13] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct (Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html> [14] Minnesota General Rules of Professional Conduct (Amended July 1, 2007). Accessed August 24, 2007 <http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/conduct.html>