Related Shows View Comments Aladdin from $57.50 James Monroe Iglehart Major Attaway is poised to become a full-time wish granter. Attaway, who is currently the standby for Genie, Sultan and Babkak in Aladdin on Broadway, will assume the role of Genie beginning February 21. James Monroe Iglehart, who won a Tony for originating the role in the Disney musical, will take his final bow at the New Amsterdam Theatre on February 19 before joining the cast of Hamilton.Aladdin marks Attaway’s Broadway debut. His regional credits include Ragtime, Big River, The Mikado, Hand on a Hardbody, Little Shop of Horrors, Ain’t Misbehavin and Rent.“Making my Broadway debut in Aladdin was an affirmation beyond imagining,” Attaway, originally from Fort Worth, Texas, said in a statement. “I get to play a catalyst for joy and hope, and I’m really looking forward to moving into the lamp on a full-time basis; I’ve got some BIG TEX-an ideas for redecorating!”Five of the Casey Nicholaw-helmed production’s original stars have extended their contracts for another year; audiences can still catch Jonathan Freeman as Jafar, Courtney Reed as Jasmine, Brian Gonzales as Babkak, Clifton Davis as Sultan and Don Darryl Rivera as Iago through February 18, 2018. The current cast also includes Steel Burkhardt as Kassim and Brad Weinstock as Omar. Deonté L. Warren will make his Broadway debut standing by for Genie and Babkak once Attaway assumes the former full-time.As previously reported, Adam Jacobs will reprise his performance as Aladdin on the show’s national tour. He concludes his stint in the Broadway production on February 12. Current understudy Joshua Dela Cruz will assume the title role temporarily until a permanent replacement is announced. Major Attaway as Genie in ‘Aladdin'(Photo: Matthew Murphy) Star Files Major Attaway
By Dialogo February 05, 2013 Three Colombian police officers were killed in an ambush allegedly set by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), insurgent group that is currently in peace negotiations with the Colombian government in Cuba, reported the law enforcement institution. The attack against the officers occurred on a road 3 km from the city of Maicao, capital of La Guajira district, while driving an undercover police truck. The agents belonged to the counter smuggling unit and were attacked from road side bushes by rifle fire, Colonel Giraldo Taborda, La Guajira Police deputy commander told the press. Chief of Police General José Roberto León, attributed the ambush to the FARC’s 59th Front. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia represent the country’s main guerrilla, with 8,000 members, and which has been in a violent fight for 48 years against the Colombian State. President Juan Manuel Santos’s government has been in peace talks with the rebel group without a ceasefire and, on the contrary, the head of state has ordered the Armed Forces to intensify the confrontation against the rebels. The FARC, which was severely affected by Uribe’s government, also kidnapped two police agents on January 27, in the southwest of the country. The authorities have attributed this incident to the guerrillas, whose delegates claimed from Cuba that they were unaware of the situation.
Proposed ethics opinions Proposed Advisory Opinion Withdrawn by the Committee The Professional Ethics Committee withdrew Proposed Advisory Opinion 02-2 at its meeting on June 21, 2002, after consideration of comments received by Florida Bar members. The proposed advisory opinion concluded that the recovery in a personal injury case involving spouses, one of whose claim is a derivative loss of consortium claim, must be treated as one recovery for application of the contingent fee schedule. Proposed Advisory Opinion Adopted by the Committee The Professional Ethics Committee has issued Proposed Advisory Opinion 02-3 reprinted below. Pursuant to Rule 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the proposed opinion. The committee will consider any comments received at a meeting to be held at the Tampa Airport Marriott in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s General Meeting, September 11-13, 2002. Comments must contain the proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the committee’s opinion is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication. PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 02-3 (June 21, 2002) The Committee has recently received an inquiry from a Florida Bar member regarding whether an attorney need avoid representation due to a conflict when the attorney is asked to represent both passenger and driver in a suit for negligence/property damage against a third party driver in an auto accident. This is an issue that arises in personal injury cases in various fact situations, including the following:1. The driver and passenger prospective clients are both injured and liability is clearly with the third party driver. There are no claims of comparative negligence or fault against the plaintiff driver.2. The driver and passenger prospective clients are both injured and liability lies mostly with the third party driver. However, the third party’s insurance company is alleging comparative fault by the plaintiff driver.3. Driver and passenger prospective clients are members of the same family and both are injured in an auto accident. While the plaintiff driver may have been partly at fault, the driver was uninsured and has no assets to satisfy an adverse judgment.4. The driver and passenger prospective clients are both injured and evidence shows that the plaintiff driver was definitely at fault as well as the third party driver of the other vehicle.5. The driver and passengers, who are members of the same immediate family, are all injured and the third party tortfeasor is claiming some fault on the part of the driver. The driver is the wife/mother of the passengers. Her liability policy has denied coverage for the other family members due to a “family exclusion” clause in the policy; she has no significant assets.Regarding multiple representation of clients, Rule 4-1.7, Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, provides: (a) Representing Adverse Interests. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to the interests of another client, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the lawyer’s responsibilities to and relationship with the other client; and (2) each client consents after consultation. (b) Duty to Avoid Limitation on Independent Professional Judgment. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the lawyer’s exercise of independent professional judgment in the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer’s own interest, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. Rule 4-1.7(c), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, continues: (c) Explanation to Clients. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved. The rule is designed to protect a represented person from contact with an attorney who represents an adverse client. The prohibition is limited to those circumstances where the lawyer is “representing a client.” Therefore, the ban on contact does not extend to a lawyer who is approached by a represented person who merely wants a second opinion, or who may be interested in hiring the lawyer in the matter.Other states analyzing this issue have reached the same conclusion. Kentucky Ethics Opinion E-325 (lawyer may give second opinion to person represented by counsel, but should not interfere with the existing attorney-client relationship or solicit the represented person during the consultation); Michigan Ethics Opinion CI-883 (lawyer may give second opinion to represented person, is not required to determine the identity of the person’s current counsel except to discover if a conflict exists, and should not disclose the consultation with the current counsel unless the represented person consents); Oregon Formal Ethics Opinion 1991-81 (lawyer can give second opinion to represented person at the person’s request, and may not disclose to the person’s current counsel that the request was made without the person’s consent); Philadelphia Ethics Opinion 91-32 (lawyer does not violate any rule by consulting with prospective client who is already represented by counsel); South Carolina Ethics Opinion 97-07 (lawyer may discuss a case with a person represented by counsel, but should advise the person whether the attorney will be able to give a competent second opinion without discussing the matter with the person’s current counsel); Utah Ethics Opinion 110 (lawyer may give a second opinion to a person represented by counsel, but should not interfere in the existing attorney-client relationship and should not solicit the represented person).Some states that have examined this issue have concluded that clients should be able to consult with as many attorneys as they wish, and to choose which attorney they would like to represent them on a given matter. Philadelphia Bar Ethics Opinion 91-32; Michigan Ethics Opinion CI-883. A client’s ability to choose a new lawyer would be impaired if lawyers were prohibited from discussing, at the prospective client’s request, aspects of the case, including what services the consulted lawyer could provide.The committee therefore concludes that a lawyer may provide a second opinion to a person who is represented by counsel at the person’s request. The lawyer may discuss what services the lawyer would be able to provide if the represented person requests not merely a second opinion, but also information about the lawyer’s availability and qualifications. Whether or not particular communications between the lawyer and the represented person might be considered tortious interference with an existing lawyer-client relationship is a legal question, outside the scope of an ethics opinion. Ethics Inquiries from the Board of Governors and Bar MembersThe Professional Ethics Committee will consider adopting proposed advisory opinions on the following issues based on inquiries from The Florida Bar Board of Governors and a member of The Florida Bar, at a meeting to be held at the Tampa Airport Marriott in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s General Meeting, September 11-13, 2002. There are no drafts for the committee’s consideration at this time. Pursuant to Procedures 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the issues presented. Comments must contain the draft proposed advisory opinion number, must clearly state the issues for the committee to consider, and may include a proposed conclusion. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication. PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 02-6 The Florida Bar Board of Governors has requested that the Professional Ethics Committee issue a proposed advisory opinion regarding the ethical propriety of an attorney requiring a client who is the seller of real estate to sign an indemnity agreement before releasing funds held by the attorney as a deposit on the purchase of real estate owned by the client. The request is based on an inquiry reviewed by the board. The client requested that the attorney release funds held by the attorney under a purchase agreement because the client believed that the buyer had forfeited the deposit under the escrow agreement. The attorney required the client to sign an indemnification agreement before releasing the funds to the client. The client and attorney were sued by the buyer, and the attorney requested that the client pay the attorney’s deductible under the firm’s insurance policy pursuant to the indemnity agreement. The client refused to pay the deductible, stating that the indemnity agreement was unethical. PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 02-7 A member of The Florida Bar has inquired whether Rule 4-1.8(j) [adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida in April 2002] requires an attorney to provide a client with a copy of the Statement of Insured Client’s Rights when the attorney is hired by an insurance company to defend an insured in an employment discrimination claim pursuant to a policy for employment practice liability insurance. The overwhelming majority of authority on the rule comes up in the context of medical providers in a personal injury case. The only Florida ethics opinion on the issue of protecting a third person’s claim arose in a personal injury context. That opinion, Opinion 67-36, dealt with a situation where the client signed an assignment with a medical provider for payment of unpaid medical bills out of the proceeds of the client’s personal injury claim. Once the personal injury case settled, the client withdrew authority for the attorney to retain part of the proceeds to pay the medical bills. The attorney complied with the client’s instructions and did not retain any money to pay the medical provider. In response to the attorney’s question as to what to do when a client withdraws authority to pay a medical provider, the Professional Ethics Committee stated: With reference to the second question, which in effect seeks instruction as to the ethical course of conduct to be followed when the client withdraws authority to pay the physician while the attorney is holding the funds of this settlement, an ethical question within our jurisdiction is presented. It is our belief that a lawyer confronted with this dilemma should initially endeavor to assist his client and the physician in effecting a compromise. Failing at this effort, it is our belief that the lawyer should institute an interpleader action in a court of competent jurisdiction naming his client and the physician as defendants. Naturally it would not be necessary for the interpleader to involve any portion of the settlement funds in excess of the demands of the physician . (emphasis added). Additionally, the reported discipline cases dealing with the rule (formerly Rule 4-1.15(b), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar) have all arisen in the personal injury context and involve lawyers failing to honor letters of protection they signed. See, The Florida Bar v. Neely, 587 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1991); The Florida Bar v. Padgett, 501 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1987); The Florida Bar v. Harris, 531 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1988); and The Florida Bar v. Krasnove, 697 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1997).However, while questions as to the rule arise most frequently in the context of medical providers in personal injury cases, neither the rule nor the comment contain any language limiting the application of the rule only to personal injury cases. Thus, it can be concluded that the same analysis used to determine whether an attorney must protect the claims of a medical provider would apply in other contexts.Rule 5-1.1(e) places three different duties on an attorney. First, the rule states that when an attorney receives funds or property in which a client or third person has an interest, the attorney “shall promptly notify the client or third person.” Second, the rule then states that, subject to certain exceptions, the attorney is to “promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive.” (emphasis added). Third, the rule states that the attorney is to “promptly render a full accounting regarding such property” when requested to do so by the client or third person. It is important to note that the rule does not distinguish between a client or third person as to these duties.Where there is no question as to who is entitled to receive the funds or property that the lawyer is holding, applying Rule 5-1.1(e) is rather straightforward. However, when there is a dispute as to who is entitled to receive the funds or property that application of the rule requires a more detailed analysis. This includes questions as to what level of notice or knowledge of the third person’s interest must the attorney have before the rule is applicable and what interests are sufficient to trigger an attorney’s obligation to protect a third person’s interest over the objections of a client.As to the level of knowledge an attorney must have before the duties under the rule are triggered, the rule itself is silent. However, the opinions that have addressed this issue conclude that an attorney must have actual knowledge of the third person’s claim. See, Arizona Opinion 98-06 (1998) (the Arizona Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct concluded that actual knowledge of the third person interest is required before duties to third persons under rule are applicable). See also, Connecticut Opinion 95-20 (1995) (attorney must have actual knowledge of the third person claim before rule applicable) and Utah Opinion 00-04 (2000) (agreeing, in footnote 3, with Arizona 98-06 that actual knowledge of the third person’s interest is required before an attorney is obligated to acted under rule). The Committee agrees with these other jurisdictions and concludes that an attorney must have actual knowledge of the third person’s claim before Rule 5-1.1(e) is applicable.The next issue raised is what types of claims made by a third person constitute “an interest” in funds or property in an attorney’s possession such that the attorney would have duties to the third person under Rule 5-1.1(e). It must be noted that the rule itself does not create the third person’s interest. See, Connecticut Opinion 98-22 (1998) (rule does not create the third person interest, rather it requires attorneys to protect interests that already exist at law). This conclusion is buttressed by the comment to the rule that says “[a] lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to protect such third person claims against wrongful interference by the client.” (emphasis added).As the previously cited disciplinary cases in Florida attest, it is clear that a letter of protection provided to a medical provider by an attorney creates “an interest” in the property or funds in an attorney’s possession under Rule 5-1.1(e) that the attorney signing the letter of protection must protect. A related situation that frequently comes up on the Ethics Hotline concerns letters of protection signed by predecessor counsel and whether current counsel must honor such a letter of protection. The Committee takes the position that if current counsel has actual knowledge of a letter of protection signed by previous counsel that current counsel must honor the letter.Based on Florida Ethics Opinion 67-36 an assignment made by the client to a medical provider also creates “an interest” sufficient to trigger an attorney’s duties under the rule, as long as the attorney has actual knowledge of the assignment. Moreover, assignments are not necessarily limited to personal injury cases. If a client gives a third person a valid assignment to the proceeds of a case or other specific funds or property that the attorney is holding for a client, the assignment by the client would constitute “an interest” in the property or funds held by the lawyer under Rule 5-1.1(e), regardless of the type of case. Several other jurisdictions have recognized that a valid assignment given by a client to a third person is a sufficient interest for the purposes of the rule. See, e.g; Utah Opinion 00-04 (2000); Colorado Formal Opinion 94 (1993); Alaska Opinion 92-3 (1992); South Carolina Advisory Opinion 94-20 (1994); South Carolina Advisory Opinion 95-29 (1995) and Tennessee Opinion 87-F-109 (1987).Other types of claims that have been considered by other jurisdictions to create an interest in a third person for the purposes of the rule include judgment liens, statutory liens and contractual liens that attach to specific property or funds in an attorney’s possession. As stated in Utah Opinion 00-04: Only those claims that rise to the level of a “matured legal or equitable claim” constitute an “interest” and trigger the duties owed under Rule 1.15. For example, a valid assignment of the funds in question could be such a claim. Certainly, a statutory or judgment lien that attaches to the specific property or funds in question or a court order requiring that the specific property of funds be turned over to the third party is such an interest. A lawyer’s knowledge that the client owes bills, even if the lawyer knows that the creditor expects to be paid out of the proceeds of a settlement or judgment, does not give rise to such duties unless the creditor has an interest in the proceeds within the meaning of Rule 1.15. (emphasis added). Similarly, in Alaska Opinion 92-3 in response to the question of which third person claims must be honored, the Alaska Ethics Committee opined: This is another way of asking the question when is the attorney obligated to deliver to the client funds “which the client is entitled to receive.” See DR 9-102(B)(4) (emphasis added). The Committee believes that when a client executes a valid assignment from settlement proceeds, or there exists a perfected statutory lien against settlement proceeds, it creates a presumption that the client is not “entitled” to those funds. See, also ; Colorado Opinion 94 (1993) (statutory liens, contracts, including assignments, and court orders can trigger duties under rule); North Carolina Opinion RPC 125 (1992) (valid lien); Tennessee Opinion 87-F-109 (1987) ( lien or assignment); Pennsylvania Opinion 93-161 (1993) (subrogation lien); Philadelphia Opinion 97-1 (1997) (statutory lien created in favor of state as to people on cash assistance); Connecticut Opinion 99-16 (1999) (statutory welfare lien); District of Columbia Opinion 251 (1994) (statutory Medicaid lien); and New York State Opinion 717 (1999) (statutory Medicaid lien).In describing the types of claims that constitute “an interest” for the purposes of the rule, Connecticut Opinion 95-20 succinctly states: This Committee concludes that the lawyer is constitutionally obligated to deliver the property to the client on demand, despite third party claims to the property, except in three limited situations: (a) if the lawyer knows of a valid judgment concerning disposition of the property; (b) the lawyer knows of a valid statutory or judgment lien against the property; or (c) the lawyer knows of a letter of protection or similar obligation that is both (i) directly related to the property held by the lawyer; and (ii) an obligation specifically entered into to aid the lawyer in obtaining the property. Proposed ethics opinions After considering the above-discussed authorities, the Committee concludes that for the purposes of Rule 5-1.1(e) only valid legal interests in favor of a third person to the property or funds held by an attorney in his or her trust account that the attorney has actual knowledge of are “interests” sufficient to trigger the attorney’s duties under the rule. These legal interests are: 1. letters of protection signed by the attorney, or signed by a previous attorney for the client if the attorney has actual knowledge of such a letter of protection; 2. valid assignments or other contractual obligations entered into by the client attaching to specific property or funds held by the attorney; and 3. valid statutory or judgment liens attaching to specific property or funds held by the attorney. Whether a particular legal interest of the type listed above is valid under the law is a legal question beyond the scope of an advisory ethics opinion. See, Rule 2, The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics. Absent such a legal interest in property or funds held by an attorney, a mere expectation by a client’s creditor that the creditor will be paid out of the proceeds or the fact that the lawyer knows the client owes a third person money is not by itself sufficient to create “an interest” in that creditor for the purposes of the rule. As noted in Alaska Opinion 92-3: There may be other claims unrelated to the subject matter of the representation; for instance child support, alimony, restitution for criminal conduct and so on. “However, a lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the client and the third party.” See Comment to Model Rule 1.15. A client is capable of and responsible for payment of his or her own obligations. Unless the claim in question has been reduced to a valid assignment or perfected lien, a creditor has no more special “entitlement” to those funds than does the client. The creditor in that situation has other remedies, such as prejudgment attachment. See Alaska R. Civ. P. 89. However, where a settlement includes or references specific allocation for a lien claimed by a third party, the amount designated for satisfaction of the lien must be utilized for that purpose. (Emphasis in original, citations omitted.) See also, Utah 00-04 and Hazard & Hodes, The Law of Lawyering—A Handbook on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Second Edition, Section 1.15:302, in which it is stated: A lawyer does not stand as a neutral observer as between his client and a third party claimant, however. The fact that a third party is expecting funds held by the lawyer to be the source of payment would not justify a lawyer’s refusal to obey the instructions of his client to turn over the entire amount. The Comment to Rule 1.15 uses the phrase “duty under applicable law” to suggest that a lawyer must have a legal or equitable claim that qualifies for special protection. Only in such cases may it be said that failure to recognize the third party interest is a species of fraud upon creditors or fraud upon the rendering court. Thus, in the absence of a duty under the law to protect a third person’s claim, an attorney does not act unethically in distributing the funds or property to the client merely because the third person expects to paid out of the funds or property the attorney is holding. Additionally, where a third person does not have a valid legal interest in the property or funds held by the attorney, but that third person notifies the attorney that he or she expects to be paid out of the property or funds, the Committee is of the opinion that the attorney is not obligated to respond to the third person. However, the attorney may want to consider whether it may be beneficial to respond to the third person that the attorney is not obligated to pay the third person out of the property or funds that attorney is holding. This is particularly true if, under substantive law apart from the ethics rules, silence on the part of the attorney could result in a legal obligation to pay the third person’s claim. The final issue concerns an attorney’s duties when a third person does have “an interest” for the purposes of Rule 5-1.1(e) in funds or property that the lawyer is holding, but where the client is disputing the claim and instructing the attorney not to pay the third person. It is here that the comment to the rule is most instructive: A lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to protect such third party claims against wrongful interference by the client and, accordingly, may refuse to surrender the property to the client. However, a lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the client and the third party and where appropriate the lawyer should consider the possibility of depositing the property or funds in dispute into the registry of the applicable court so that the matter may be adjudicated. The comment illustrates that the lawyer cannot unilaterally arbitrate a dispute between the client and the third person. In other words, the lawyer cannot take it upon himself or herself to decide how much the client gets and how much the third person gets when there is a dispute between the client and the third person. In the event of a dispute, the attorney must under Rule 5-1.1(e) and (f) notify the client and third person of the receipt of the funds or property, but the attorney must retain the disputed funds or property in trust until the dispute is resolved. However, any undisputed funds or property must be distributed to the appropriate person. [FN1] If the dispute cannot be resolved, the attorney should then interplead the funds or property into the court registry and let the court decide how the funds or property are to be distributed.In discussing an attorney’s duties in the event there is a dispute between a client and a third person having “an interest” under the rule, another part of the rule should be further addressed. Rule 5-1.1(e) states that “[e]xcept as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive.” (emphasis added). This language was interpreted in Arizona Opinion 98-06. That opinion states:Finally, the Committee notes that it could be argued that by agreement with the client the attorney could ignore his otherwise mandated duties to account to third parties who have an interest in the settlement proceeds. ER 1.15 provides in pertinent part: “Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds. . . ” (Emphasis added). The Committee interprets this provision as only allowing the attorney to retain the client’s portion of the funds if there is an agreement to that effect between the lawyer and the client (for example, the attorney is to retain all or part of the client’s share of the settlement proceeds as a retainer on a subsequent case the attorney has agreed to handle.) No agreement with the client can override the attorney’s duty to third parties who have a valid interest in the settlement proceeds in the hands of the attorney. (emphasis in original.)The Committee agrees with the reasoning of the Arizona Committee and interprets the language of Rule 5-1.1(e) the same way. In conclusion, before an attorney has an obligation to a third person under Rule 5-1.1(e) the attorney must have actual knowledge of the third person’s claimed interest and only valid legal interests of a third person to the property or funds held by the attorney are sufficient to create “an interest” in such property or funds for the purposes of the rule. A creditor’s mere expectation to be paid out of funds held by the attorney by itself is insufficient to create “an interest” under the rule. [FN 1] It should be noted that in contingency fee cases no distributions can be made until the client signs the closing statement as required by Rule 4-1.5(f)(5). In the event of a dispute over whether a third person should be paid, the attorney should do a partial closing statement disclosing what undisputed amounts are being distributed and disclosing what is being held in trust pending resolution of the dispute. DRAFT PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 02-5 The Professional Ethics Committee is aware that there have been many inquiries on the Ethics Hotline regarding a lawyer’s obligations when a person who is represented by counsel in a matter asks for a “second opinion” on their case. Clients sometimes would like another lawyer’s opinion on how the lawyer currently representing them is handling the case or on a particular point of law. Clients may also be interested in obtaining a different lawyer in their matter and would like to discuss the case and what services the other lawyer can provide without terminating their current representation first.Lawyers are concerned that such communications may violate Rule 4-4.2, addressing communications with persons represented by counsel, or may otherwise violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-4.2, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, provides as follows: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. July 15, 2002 Regular News The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, ethics opinions and opinions of Florida courts provide guidance in these matters. The Florida Supreme Court has issued an opinion specifically dealing with ethical issues involved in representing both driver and passenger(s) in an auto accident. The Court held in The Florida Bar v. Mastrilli, 614 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1993), that one attorney could not simultaneously represent both driver and passenger in an auto accident where the passenger is pursuing a claim for negligence against the driver. Dual representation in these circumstances would violate Rule 4-1.7(a), supra. This decision echoes an earlier Florida Ethics Opinion 73-2, which reached the same conclusion.Similarly, the Court held in State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630 (Fla.1991), that a law firm which had represented driver and passengers against third party insurers and tortfeasors could not later represent the passengers against the driver. The firm was disqualified due to the strenuous objection of a real party in interest, the insurer, even though the driver had a new attorney at the time he was sued and had consented to the passengers’ suit. Id. Such conflict issues may not be apparent at an initial consultation with prospective clients. Conflict issues may arise later or be resolved during discovery and litigation. Conflict issues that arise in personal injury auto accident cases can present various fact situations, including the following: Scenario 1 Where there are no actual or potential claims by passengers against the driver of the vehicle in which the passengers were injured, one attorney can ethically represent all parties as long as there is sufficient insurance coverage by the third party tortfeasor to cover the injuries of all injured plaintiffs. If there is not sufficient funding to cover the injuries of all the plaintiffs, one attorney may represent all the parties, with their knowing consent and waiver of conflict, only if all the plaintiffs are able to agree regarding the distribution of benefits/recovery among themselves. Rule 4-1.7(a)(1) and (2), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Individual representation of each of the plaintiffs is advisable to determine the apportionment of benefits obtained from the third party tortfeasor. If each plaintiff is advised independently, this assures that waivers of conflict are knowing and informed as required by Rule 4-1.7(a)(1) and (2). The parties may agree among themselves to submit to intra-familial arbitration with an independent arbitrator to determine the distribution of benefits on an equitable basis. Independent guardians appointed to represent injured minors can be useful in this regard. The lawyer representing all the claimants as plaintiffs cannot be involved in determining the distribution of the recovery among the various plaintiffs. Scenario 2 Where the third party tortfeasor is making a claim against the driver of a vehicle in which passengers were injured, and this claim is based upon valid objective evidence, one attorney cannot represent both driver and passenger(s). Similarly, in a one car accident, where there is evidence of negligence by the driver, one attorney cannot represent both driver and passenger(s). A conflict exists under Rule 4-1.7(a) and (b), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct; Ethics Opinion 73-2; The Florida Bar v. Mastrilli, supra. As noted in the Comment to Rule 4-1.7, “when a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to the representation under the circumstances, the lawyer involved cannot properly ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client’s consent.” In determining whether a conflict exists, the attorney should look at the situation as if he or she were representing the passenger(s) alone. If, in that situation, the attorney would sue the driver, then in most circumstances, the attorney cannot represent both driver and passenger(s).[FN 1] Scenario 3 Typically, the only exception to the conclusion in Scenario 2 would be when passenger and driver are members of the same family and the driver is uninsured or otherwise judgment proof. Comparative fault precepts may come into play. Fla. Stat. Sec. 768.81 (1999). Where a conflict of interest exists under Rule 4-1.7, lawyers must be very cautious in undertaking multiple representation. The Florida Bar v. Mastrilli, supra. The situation must be one in which an independent attorney would determine that it is not worthwhile or appropriate to sue the driver because there is no legal or economic basis for a claim under the circumstances. Comment to Rule 4-1.7. The same conclusion would be reached if the third party tortfeasor’s claim against the driver is bogus and without substantiation in fact. As set forth in Oregon Ethics Opinion 2000-158: There may be situations in which allegations of contributory negligence do not create an actual conflict. The passengers may disagree with the adverse driver’s factual contentions. If the driver and the passengers are closely related, the passengers may not wish to pursue intra-family claims. Assuming that these decisions not to pursue claims are made voluntarily and without influence arising from the lawyer’s obligations to the driver, there is no actual conflict between the clients. Again, knowing consents and waivers must be obtained from all parties in these circumstances. It may be the better practice for these consents to be obtained in writing and for the parties to be given the opportunity to consult with independent counsel before waiving an actual conflict. Scenario 4 Where the driver and passengers are all injured, but evidence shows that the plaintiff driver was partly at fault or at least a substantial question is raised as to the fault of the plaintiff driver under objectively valid evidence obtained, such that an independent attorney would advise the passenger to sue the driver, there exists a Rule 4-1.7(a) conflict between the passengers and driver. Under these circumstances one attorney cannot represent both driver and passengers, even with the consent of the clients involved. Rule 4-1.7(a) and Comment; Mastrilli, supra. ; Texas Ethics Opinion 500, Oregon Ethics Opinion 2000-158. The same result may obtain if the driver were a former client of the attorney representing the passengers in the accident. Rule 4-1.9(a) and (b), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Scenario 5 When passenger and driver are members of the same family and the driver is underinsured, uninsured or otherwise judgment proof, one attorney can represent all parties against the driver’s uninsured/underinsured motorist policy and against the tortfeasor if the situation is such that an independent attorney would determine that it is not worthwhile or appropriate to sue the driver because there is no legal or economic basis for a claim under the circumstances. Comment to Rule 4-1.7. The same result would obtain if the tortfeasor’s claim against the driver is bogus and without substantiation in fact. Oregon Ethics Opinion 2000-158, supra. Knowing consents and waivers must be obtained from all parties in these circumstances. The attorney for the passengers may wish to have independent guardians appointed for any minor children to make sure that their interests are properly and independently represented in these circumstances. All parties, including the guardians for any minor passengers, should be given the opportunity to consult with independent counsel before waiving an actual conflict.When conflict determinative facts do not come to light until after an attorney has already begun to represent both driver and passengers, remedial measures may be required. If discovery reveals, for example, that a non-waivable conflict exists between co-clients, the attorney may be required to withdraw from representation of both driver and passengers because of the direct conflict between them. Rule 4-1.7(a); Rule 4-1.16(a) and (d), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct; Florida Ethics Opinion 95-4. Even if the attorney had only brief meetings with both driver and passengers, representation may be deemed to have begun under pertinent caselaw. In Florida, a prospective client’s subjective belief that his or her meeting with an attorney (in person or by telephone) was a meeting seeking and receiving legal advice, may create an attorney client relationship, if the client’s belief was reasonable. Dean v. Dean, 607 So.2d 494 (Fla. 4 th D CA 1992), review denied, 618 So.2d 208 (Fla.1993). The test is not whether a fee was paid or an engagement agreement signed, but whether the client reasonably believed that he or she was consulting an attorney seeking legal advice. Garner v. Somberg, 672 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Summary In each of the factual situations set forth above, if the attorney determines that a conflict exists, the attorneys must follow Rule 4-1.16(a) and (d), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, withdraw from the representation and protect the clients during the withdrawal process by providing them with copies of necessary documents and, if needed, obtaining extensions of time for them to find new counsel. Where an attorney withdraws from representing either driver, passenger, or both because of a conflict, the attorney cannot take a referral fee for referring the former client’s case to another lawyer. Florida Ethics Opinion 89-1. The conflict would prohibit the attorney’s acceptance of joint responsibility for the representation as required by Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(D)(i) and (ii), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and Chandris v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995).As shown in the varying fact situations set forth above, each case must be dealt with on its own facts, following the guidelines set forth in Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.9, Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and the above cited decisions. [FN 1] Florida law allows suits by one spouse against the other spouse to the extent of insurance coverage. Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1982). Draft Proposed Advisory Opinions at the Request of the Board of GovernorsThe Professional Ethics Committee will consider adopting proposed advisory opinions on the following issues based on inquiries from The Florida Bar Board of Governors, at a meeting to be held at the Tampa Airport Marriott in conjunction with The Florida Bar’s General Meeting, September 11-13, 2002. Draft proposed advisory opinions on these issues are reprinted below. The drafts have not been reviewed or adopted by the full committee. Pursuant to Procedures 4(c) and (d) of The Florida Bar Procedures for Ruling on Questions of Ethics, comments from Florida Bar members are solicited on the issue presented and on the draft proposed advisory opinion. Comments must contain the draft proposed advisory opinion number and clearly state the issues for the committee to consider. A written argument may be included explaining why the Florida Bar member believes the draft is either correct or incorrect and may contain citations to relevant authorities. Comments should be submitted to Elizabeth Clark Tarbert, Ethics Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300, and must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this publication. DRAFT PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION 02-4The Committee has recently received numerous inquiries regarding an attorney’s obligations to protect funds or other property in the lawyer’s possession in which third parties have an interest. This is an issue that most frequently arises in personal injury cases with medical providers, as is evidenced by calls on the Ethics Hotline as well as requests for written opinions. This is because personal injury cases involve situations where it is most likely that either a client has signed an assignment with a medical provider, an attorney has signed a letter of protection or there may be a statute giving a medical provider a lien. However, the issue of whether an attorney must protect a third person’s claim to funds or property in the attorney’s possession can arise in other contexts.The governing ethical rule is Rule 5-1.1(e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (formerly Rule 4-1.15(b)) which states: (e) Notice of Receipt of Trust Funds; Delivery; Accounting. Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. The comment to Rule 5-1.2, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, is also instructive: Third parties, such as a client’s creditors, may have just claims against funds or other property in a lawyer’s custody. A lawyer may have a duty under applicable law to protect such third party claims against wrongful interference by the client and, accordingly, may refuse to surrender the property to the client. However, a lawyer should not unilaterally assume to arbitrate a dispute between the client and the third party and where appropriate the lawyer should consider the possibility of depositing the property or funds in dispute into the registry of the applicable court so that the matter may be adjudicated.
CNTB has published a list of fairs where it plans to participate in 2018.Compared to 2017, Mostar will be abolished, and after a 3-year break, a performance at the MATKA fair in Helsinki is planned again. The costs of arranging the current design of the stand are lower by 17% compared to 2017 (in Madrid by 7%), and from the ITB in Berlin, the CNTB will have a new design of the stand. The CNTB expects the announcement of the prices of arranging stands with a new design at the beginning of December.By the way, last month, in accordance with the public tender, was selected a new concept and creative solution appearances of the CNTB at fairs that will be used at fair appearances in the next few years. Selected work Connecting diversity and openness (No. 07) as a key element of recognizability, he proposes an effective “floating” exhibition of photographs within the maximally purified exhibition space. The potential change of types of photographs depending on the exhibition priorities (fair topics) enables a relatively simple and effective intervention in the exhibition space, which still requires additional attention when choosing photographs. The well-organized space, clearly zoned according to the requirements, fits different stand sizes and is easily applicable in different situations stand out from the HDD.For stands in the first half of the year, where there is no known price of rent and / or renovation, and it is necessary to report them as soon as possible, the CNTB provides estimates of the cost of co-exhibition to facilitate cost planning:MATKA Helsinki, tourist fair for business and general public, January 18-21.1.2018, 1.750: estimate of the total cost of a small co-exhibition space with VAT: around € 2.450; larger co-exhibition space with VAT: about € XNUMXITB Berlin, tourist fair for business audiences, March 7-11.3.2018, 4.300. – new stand design: estimate of the total cost of a small co-exhibition space with VAT: around € 6.100; larger co-exhibition space with VAT: about € XNUMXMITT Moscow, tourist fair for business audiences, March 13-15.3.2018, 4.360: estimate of the total cost of a small co-exhibition space with VAT: around € 6.100; larger co-exhibition space with VAT: about € XNUMXMAP Paris, tourist fair for business and general public, March 15-18.3.2018, 4.770: estimate of the total cost of a small co-exhibition space with VAT: around € 6.680; larger co-exhibition space with VAT: around € XNUMXATM Dubai, tourist fair for business audiences, April 22-25.4.2018, 6.080: estimate of the total cost of a small co-exhibition space with VAT: about $ 8.500; larger co-exhibit with VAT: about $ XNUMXIMEX Frankfurt, congress fair for business audiences, 15-17.5.2018 May 9.150 – new stand design: estimate of the total cost of a small co-exhibition space with VAT: around € XNUMXThe CNTB emphasizes that for the autumn fairs that have not yet been held in 2017 (Rimini, London, Barcelona and Paris), rental prices, decoration prices and exact dates for 2018 are not known.All information about the fairs, as well as the conditions and lease can be found here: HTZ FAIRS 2018 Related news: NEW CONCEPT AND CREATIVE SOLUTION FOR CNTB’S APPEARANCE AT FAIRS SELECTED
Kos-Jurišić winery, photo: Julio Frangen The wine tour started at the winery Kos-Jurisic and their vineyard where they organize a wine picnic for guests with a wicker basket and food of their choice (Špekec, Picek or Pajcek) and a bottle of the inevitable Zelina kingdom which is produced only in Zelina vineyards and gives drinking wines of low alcohol, more pronounced but pleasant acids and delicate aromas . In addition to the kingdom, Mario Jurišić grows and produces wines from Pinot Gris, Chardonnay, Rhine Riesling and another old variety – Kerner. More at: www.inculturaveritas.eu Šember Winery the second is the selected winery that presents in the best possible way all the potential provided by the picturesque Plešivica hills. Back in 1997, the Šember family decided to make most wines as sparkling, using the classic method of second fermentation in the bottle. Today, they offer three top sparkling wines, of which we especially emphasize Pavel, an extremely complex sparkling wine that goes well with slightly stronger food. Zdenko and Nikola Šember, in addition to chardonnay, which they use almost exclusively for sparkling wine, also produce top-quality still wines from Pinot Noir and Rhine Riesling, which can be tasted through guided tastings by Ivanka Šember, who is sometimes helped by her daughters. Kos winery, photo: Julio Frangen The project is part of the INTERREG VA Slovenia-Croatia Cooperation Program 2014-2020. and officially approved in June 2018, implementation began on August 1, 2018, and runs through the end of this year. The project budget is around EUR 85 million, of which XNUMX% is provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the rest is the financial contribution of the project partners. A one-day study tour for about 20 journalists and representatives of marketing agencies promoted the Zelina and Plešivica wine roads, in whose cellars hospitable winemakers introduced guests to the world of wine production through interesting stories, paired with indigenous gastronomic delicacies, and the famous writer and presenter Marijana Perinić costumed as Marija Juric Zagorka she also led a tour through the Jastrebarsko City Museum and Gallery, which houses numerous objects related to the tradition of wine production in Plešivica. According to legend, the Countess Marija Ana Nizky, married Erdödy she was a close friend but also a muse to Ludwig van Beethoven. She honored him with the autochthonous Zelina kingdom, whose 34 bottles the famous composer mentions in his diary from 1811, noting that 15 of them are in the maid’s room. The chroniclers are convinced that the wine of Zelina appealed to the maestro, and that shipments became more frequent because of that, and in return Ludwig dedicated several of his compositions to the countess. You will hear this and many other stories while touring the cross-border area between Slovenia and Croatia, which winds more than 200 km of picturesque wine roads that, in addition to vineyards and wine cellars, also connect about 80 cultural heritage sites. Which – along with Beethoven – was enjoyed by many celebrities like Isadore Duncan, Charlie Chaplina, Franz Liszt so i Maria Theresa reveals the project In Cultura Veritas in cooperation Zagreb County and Slovenian subregions Obsotelje i Kozjansko which presents the wine tradition as an important part of the culture of this area, and objects and customs related to wine production that are part of the exhibition of local museums. In addition to tourism promotion, the goal of the project is to save cultural heritage sites from decay, improve stakeholder cooperation and generally raise economic activities. Among the numerous winemakers on the Plešivička wine road, the choice fell on the Braje and Šember wineries. Spouses Robert and Sanda and their son Patrik will welcome you in the heart of the Plešivica-Okić vineyards where the picnic area is located Vineyard house Braje. In the middle of the gentle hills there is a large wooden house and a restaurant with traditional but very creative cuisine in which you work according to original recipes with groceries that they grow themselves or buy from neighbors. For each recommendation, there is osso buco, a roast beef shank that is cooked for four hours in Pinot Noir, which can be tasted together with three other varieties: red Veltlinac red, Rhine Riesling, and Pinot Gris. Just five hundred yards away, visit the winery Kos where dad Željko and son Karlo will introduce you to all their labels, paired with local specialties and fresh cheeses. On about 4,5 hectares of vineyards, they mostly grow Rhine Riesling, Chardonnay, Graševina, Kerner, Pinot Noir and the indigenous kingdom. In addition to still wines, they also produce two sparkling wines, both by the classic method in the brut variant: for Anita, the base wine is a blend of kingdom, chardonnay and Rhine Riesling, and Rosula is a pink sparkling wine made of Pinot Noir. You will be delighted by the top Rhine Riesling and calm rosé, also made of Pinot Noir. In addition to the four wine roads (Zelinska, Plešivička, Samoborsk and Šmarje-Virštanj), visitors can visit three museums (Jastrebarsko City Museum, Samobor Museum te Baroque Museum in Šmarje, in Museum of St. Ivan Zelina who died in a recent earthquake offers a virtual walk through the project “Museum at your home”. If you are lucky, you will be joined by a young winemaker from the neighborhood Ivana Puhelek and present an intriguing champagne Queen, of course from the kingdom. Braje winery, photo: Julio Frangen Marijana Perinic as Marija Juric Zagorka, photo: Julio Frangen Šember winery, photo: Julio Frangen This project activity was jointly carried out by partners Zagreb County and the Association of Croatian Travel Agencies, with the help of a travel agency Globtour Event doo A similar study tour, intended to promote the tourist offer of the Slovenian part of the project area, will be organized by the Slovenian project partner Development Agency Sotla. Ivana Rendulić Jelušić, Saša Stanković and Ivana Puhelek, photo: Julio Frangen
“We’re hoping that over the next few weeks we’ll be able to determine the response that we can see in those mice, in their blood, their antibody response to the coronavirus.”Scientists across the world are racing to develop a way to stamp out the new strain of a well-known virus that has been successfully combatted in the past.Imperial College London said it cannot be sure how advanced other teams’ research is at the moment.China’s Xinhua state news agency cited a local news report as saying that a Shanghai university also injected a test vaccine into mice on Sunday. A team of UK scientists believe they are among the first to start animal testing of a vaccine for the new coronavirus outbreak that has killed more than 1,000 people and spread around the world.Researchers at Imperial College London said their ultimate goal was to have an effective and safe way of halting the SARS-like strain’s spread by the end of the year.”At the moment we have just put the vaccine that we’ve generated from these bacteria into mice,” Imperial College London researcher Paul McKay told AFP in an interview on Monday. But the local report cited unnamed sources and there has been no official announcement about the Chinese tests.Britain has recorded eight cases of the virus and been forced to shut down two branches of a medical center in the southeast city of Brighton where at least two staff members tested positive.But coming up with a vaccine is a laborious process that usually involves years of animal testing and clinical trials on humans.Regulators must then make sure that the vaccine is both sufficiently safe and effective to be mass produced.Imperial College London hopes that research on the SARS coronavirus nearly two decades ago can speed things up.”We’re hoping to be the first to get this particular vaccine into human clinical trials, and that perhaps is our personal goal,” McKay said.”Once the phase one trial is complete — which can take a few months to complete — it can be immediately started into an efficacy trial in people, which will also take a few months to complete,” McKay added.”So, perhaps by the end of this year there will be a viable tested vaccine that would be suitable for use in people.” ‘Collaborative race’ Much of the world’s current research into the new strain is being funded through the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).The group was formed at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos to help drug companies and universities join forces and stamp out dangerous and preventable diseases.Imperial College London is not working with any of the current teams partnering with CEPI and requires its own sources of funding.Its scientists hope that successful animal testing can help secure investments that allow clinical trials to start some time between June and August.McKay said it would be unfair to say that the various universities and companies are competing to become the first to develop a vaccine.”There’s been so much cross-sharing with all of this information — I mean the Chinese, as soon as the genome was sequenced, they shared it freely with everyone in the world,” he noted.”So to put it in a competitive sense is probably not accurate. I would say that it’s a collaborative race.” Topics :
Sharing is caring! Share LocalNews Bus drivers confident new bus system will work by: – June 1, 2012 Tweet Share Share 23 Views no discussions No entry sign erected at the new exit point for busesWhile some bus drivers and passengers vented their frustration over the new bus system in the City of Roseau which no longer allows buses to drop persons off at the Lagoon bus stop on Independence Street, others believe it is working fine and should have been implemented a long time ago.Effective Friday June 1st, 2012 buses entering the city from the E C Loblack Bridge are now required to turn right into River Bank and drop off and collect passengers at the designated area between the E. C Loblack Bridge and the Great George Street Bridge, or what is commonly referred to as the “Pizza Palace” bus stop.Vehicles can no longer turn right into River Bank where it intersects with Great George Street since this area is now used as a point of exit.This new exercise is on an effort to alleviate the congestion of traffic coming into the city.Dominica Vibes News visited the bus stop during the 1:00 pm rush hour and spoke with the Public Relations Officer of the Mahaut, Massacre, Jimmit, Canefield Bus Drivers Association, Howard Ambrose who stated that the system “works like a charm”.“Obviously you will have teething problems whenever you going to start something new, you gonna have people that resisting to change, but as you can see Mahaut constituency has an organized bus service with one bus loading at a time to leave with a 5 minutes maximum wait time”.While he admits it may not be financially rewarding for some bus drives, he said it will be rewarding in other ways.A no entry sign at what use to be a designed exit point“Some of the bus drivers themselves are worried because obviously they may make less money but it’s going to save them on running empty throughout the day and the advantage is they don’t have to go all the way into town. The system works outside of Dominica why can’t it work here?”Ambrose is hopeful that positive things will come from this decision.“I can see nothing but good coming from that because we now have a structured system, we have a registration system in place as well for the Association and we even organizing uniforms,” Ambrose revealed.So while others feel this exercise is doomed to “fail” others remain hopeful that with time persons will even “forget” how disorganized the bus system in that area was before.The bus stop serves as a drop off and pick up point for Mahaut, Massacre, St. Joseph, Fond Cole, Canefield and Goodwill communities.[nggallery id = 190]Dominica Vibes News
According to the Dailymail of London, Botafogo are closing in on signing former Manchester City midfielder on yet undisclosed amount.The Brazilian side are at the verge of recruiting the 36-year-old, who was most recently playing for Qingdao Huanghai in the Chinese Super League before his contract expired.According to GloboEsporte, negotiations with Toure’s representatives are still ongoing over a contract but should be finalised by Wednesday or Thursday.Toure is reportedly interested in the move but Botafogo are understood to require financial assistance from investors.There is hope that the club will manage to find the cash as the board recently did with Japanese star Keisuke Honda.At 33-years-old, he is a similar player profile to Toure, who is regarded by many as a club legend at City.Botafogo’s football committee approved the signing as they regard Toure as a ‘spectacular African legend’ and his CV backs up their verdict.Toure won the Champions League and two LaLiga titles at Barcelona before claiming three Premier League crowns at the Etihad.He played 14 times for Huanghai, scoring two goals for the club but it seems his stay in China is to be shortlived.Read Also:I feel so proud as ex-Premier League player, says Yaya ToureBotafogo are the front-runners for his signature but may abandon hope of an agreement if they fail to come to an understanding by Thursday.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Loading… Promoted Content10 Absolutely Unique Facts About KanyeEver Thought Of Sleeping Next To Celebs? This Guy Will Show You10 Amazing Characters We Wish Were Official Disney Princesses12 Flicks That Almost Ended Their Stars’ Careers6 Interesting Ways To Make Money With A Drone14 Hilarious Comics Made By Women You Need To Follow Right NowCouples Who Celebrated Their Union In A Unique, Unforgettable Way2020 Tattoo Trends: Here’s What You’ll See This Year5 Of The World’s Most Unique Theme ParksWhich Country Is The Most Romantic In The World?Who’s The Best Car Manufacturer Of All Time?The Very Last Bitcoin Will Be Mined Around 2140. Read More Just like how Nigeria’s Odion Ighalo escaped from China to play for Manchester United, Yaya Toure is on his way to Brazil to pitch tents with Botafogo Football Club.Advertisement
RelatedPosts Ighalo: My best moment as ‘Red Devil’ EPL: Crystal Palace stun sloppy Man U EPL: Red Devils attack Palace Manchester United is reluctant to sanction a £20 million move for Odion Ighalo and are preparing to resume the Premier League season without the Nigerian.Ole Gunnar Solskjaer had been keen to sign the 30-year-old on a permanent basis but the coronavirus pandemic is set to have a widespread effect on club finances and United are not as willing as they once were to splurge on a back-up forward. United’s preference is now to extend Ighalo’s loan deal and they’re willing to put up a fee to do so.However, Shanghai Shenhua are keen to cash in on Ighalo while he’s flying high and the Chinese outfit are seeking £20 million for the Nigerian.Ighalo’s current loan runs until the end of May and the Premier League season has been given a tentative green light to resume in early June.United is yet to hold official talks with Shenhua over Ighalo, but ESPN claimed the Red Devils are “holding off” from negotiations and are prepared to resume the season without the forward.That would be a big blow for Ighalo as the boyhood United fan is desperate to make a permanent move to Old Trafford. Tags: Manchester UnitedOdion IghaloOle Gunnar SolskjaerShanghai Shenhua
Ogbonna returned to the heart of Bilic’s defence in Sunday’s 2-0 victory over London rivals Arsenal and will retain his place alongside Winston Reid for the home game against Leicester. And the 27-year-old said it was talks with Bilic, as well as the promise of first-team football, that saw him leave the relative comfort of Italy’s top club to join a side which finished 12th in the Premier League last season. “I talked with the manager and he explained to me what he wants to do with this club,” Ogbonna told Press Association Sport. “The manager sold me the story and I feel it is better for my career to come to West Ham now. I know I will play now and I don’t think about last year. I have to think about this year. “I am very happy but it (the Arsenal win) was only the first match so we are looking forward and not just thinking about what we did in the first match. We knew it was a difficult game but there are a lot of difficult games so we have to concentrate on the next game and take things step by step.” Both Ogbonna and Payet impressed on their Premier League debuts as Cheikhou Kouyate and Mauro Zarate scored the goals to secure a memorable win at the Emirates Stadium. But the standout performance of the afternoon came from 16-year-old Reece Oxford, who was deployed in a holding midfield role by Bilic. Oxford is already the youngest player to ever represent the Hammers and his performance at Arsenal belied his age – with Ogbonna admitting he can learn off the teenager as well as give Oxford advise. Angelo Ogbonna has revealed Slaven Bilic sold him on his vision for West Ham and used the lure of regular football to convince him to move to Upton Park. Press Association “It’s not just me giving him my experience but also our experience together,” he added. “He helps me and I help him. We are only one group and we follow what our coach teaches us and maybe step by step, everything will be good for us. “I am very grateful. For me it’s a pleasure to play with someone as young as him. He’s a very quiet boy and I’m very proud of him because he is here and he understands everybody and he wants to learn everything. He wants to learn all the tactics and methods. I’m very happy for him.” The Italy international picked up two Serie A titles during his time with Juventus and was an unused substitute in May’s Champions League final defeat to Barcelona. Since then he has become the second player of the summer – after Dimitri Payet – to move to West Ham for an eight-figure fee but scored an unfortunate own goal on his debut against Astra Giurgiu in the Europa League qualifiers.