Draft California Ethics Opinion Would Define Acceptable “Puffery” in Negotiations
This post has been viewed 2,852 times.
I’m not sure I’m surprised by the contents. Depends on how optimistic I was feeling before I read the draft. Available at bit.ly/1ma8X3S
* * *
DISCUSSION/PROPOSAL: Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0007 considers: When an attorney is engaged in negotiations on behalf of a client, what conduct constitutes permissible “puffing” and what conduct constitutes improper false statements of material fact?
The opinion interprets rule 3-700(B)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California; and Business and Professions Code sections 6068(b), (c), and (d), 6106 and 6128.
The opinion digest states: Statements made by counsel during the course of negotiations are, generally, subject to those rules prohibiting an attorney from engaging in deceit or collusion. (See Business and Professions Code sections 6068(d) and 6128(a)). Thus, it is improper for an attorney to make false statements of material fact during the course of a negotiation. However, statements about a party’s negotiating goals or willingness to compromise may include allowable “puffery” provided those statements do not contain false statements of material fact.
Read original articleTags: Business and Professions Code sections, false statements
