Menu
Photo of Lawyers for the Profession® Noah D. Fiedler
Partner-in-Charge of Milwaukee
nfiedler@hinshawlaw.com
414-225-4805
View Bio
Noah Fiedler helps corporations and public entities avoid litigation and prevail in complex disputes. Having served as chief executive officer of a …

Showing 11 posts by Noah D. Fiedler.

Lawyer Disqualification and the Celgard Decision

The Celgard decision (Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, LTD., 2014 WL 7691765, 594 Fed. Appx. 669 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2014), has prompted a lot of discussion, some of it from Hinshaw. Other commentators have also weighed in, and one discussion in particular caught my eye, from Ronald Rotunda of Chapman University. You can find his article here, and it's worth reading, especially if you work in patent law or lawyering law.

Don't let the Investigators get you down: The Ethics of Representing a Client During a Law Enforcement Investigation

Lawyers Behind BarsIt can be dangerous work representing a client during a law enforcement investigation. Tired of the burden of proving allegations of wrongdoing, many law enforcement agencies have recently turned to punishing the defense of the allegations. Targeting both inside and outside counsel, enforcement agencies sometimes seek disciplinary action or even institute criminal proceedings against counsel who did nothing more than represent their client. More ›

New Blog Concentrates on Lawyer Disqualification Issues

Keith Swisher, Associate Professor of Law at Arizona Summit Law School, has launched a blog entitled DQed: The Lawyer Disqualification Blog. DQed "exclusively cover[s] lawyer and law firm disqualification." The blog contains updates on disqualification issues and cases, charts and statistics, and research and writing devoted to disqualification.

If you deal with disqualification motions in any fashion, DQed is a great resource to keep up on the latest.

Congratulations to the ABA Journal's Top 100 Blawgs of 2014

Towards the end of every year, the ABA Journal publishes a list of the top 100 law-related blogs (blawgs) of that year. The 2014 edition, the eighth of its kind, features 100  great blawgs from around the country and from every area of practice. If you haven't checked out these blawgs, do it now, and maybe you'll find a new resource for the coming year.

Save the Date for the 2015 LMRM Conference: The Premier Event for Risk Management and Legal Malpractice Professionals

For the fourteenth time, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP's Lawyers for the Profession practice group is proud to present its Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference.

LMRM 2015

The LMRM Conference offers interactive panels led by leaders in the fields of professional liability, law firm counsel, risk management, and insurance. Each panel comprehensively examines current developments emphasizing recent legal decisions.

The conference will be held February 25–27, 2015, at 320 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. Registration will open soon.

For more detailed information, go to www.lmrm.com 

#LMRM2015

Voluntary Withdrawal Without a Specific fee Agreement can be Costly

In Winston v. Guelzow, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals considered how attorneys should share contingency fees after the termination of their joint law practice. Winston and Guelzow shared a personal injury practice for a few years. Guelzow decided to end the joint practice, and Winston agreed.

Winston sent to the 13 remaining clients a letter informing them of their options in representation, and recommending that the clients remain with Guelzow. The clients all followed the recommendation. Although there was a verbal agreement on fee sharing during the firm's operation, Winston and Guelzow had no contract for dividing the contingency fees after the separation. When the firm separated and the cases resolved, Guelzow reimbursed Winston for the costs he advanced. Winston sued, seeking a share of the contingency fees from the 13 clients. More ›

Wisconsin Supreme Court Denies Petition to Inform Public of Disciplinary Investigations

On June 24, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered a petition from the state's Office of Lawyer Regulation ("OLR") to create a rule that would have permitted the OLR to disclose the existence of a formal investigation into an attorney's possible misconduct or medical incapacity when such disclosure is required to protect the public. At present Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 22.40 requires the OLR to maintain the confidentiality of pending disciplinary investigations.

According to the OLR, a small number of grievances involve a situation where the subject lawyer's continued practice, in the OLR's opinion, presents a possibility of harm to unsuspecting individuals. Of course, the issue here is the delicate balance between the public's right to promptly be informed of attorney misconduct and the accused attorney's right to protection from disclosure of non-meritorious grievances.

After a full discussion of the issue, the Court ultimately denied the petition on a 4-3 vote. With two of seven members of the Court in favor of permitting amendments to the suggested rule, and one voting against denial of the current petition, this possible change is only mostly dead.

ABA Journal Seeks best Legal Blogs for the eighth Annual Blawg 100

Every year, the ABA Journal lists its 100 best blawgs of the year. For the uninitiated, a blawg is a blog about the law, or a related issue. 

To get its list, the ABA Journal asks all of us to weigh in on our favorite blawgs. You can nominate your favorite blawg here. There's a 500-character limit on your comments, which are due no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on August 8, 2014.

While our blog hasn't been around long enough to warrant inclusion, we encourage you to click the link above and let the legal world know what blogs you follow and appreciate.

Getting Paid: Protect your Statutory Attorney Fees

In Betz v. Diamond Jim's Auto Sales, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered what happens to statutory attorney fees when a client settles a case without notifying its lawyer. The court was "asked to determine the circumstances under which plaintiff's counsel may recover statutory attorney's fees directly from a defendant when, without counsel's knowledge or approval, the plaintiff and defendant enter into a settlement agreement that does not address attorney's fees."

We all have problem clients, but a client that completely settles its claims without telling you has to be near the top of the list. That's particularly true when you're working on a contingent fee, or expecting to recover statutory fees. More ›

Wisconsin Supreme Court Clarifies Permitted Disclosures in Ineffective Assistance Claims

On May 20 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered an attorney's ability to disclose otherwise attorney-client privileged information in response to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court compared the Wisconsin version of Rule 1.6 with ABA Formal Opinion 10-456, and decided that, despite the opinion, Wisconsin's rule does not limit permitted disclosures to a "court-supervised" setting, like a Machner proceeding. More ›