Perhaps Lundgren’s lawyers have not understood what the Client has clearly written.
–
3.1 Lundgrens acts on the basis of and in accordance with the client’s instructions, and the client and Lundgrens regularly agree on the legal assistance and scope of the assignment as well as the client’s and others’ involvement.
First
Lundgren’s attorneys have not written anything that some of their clients’ fraud allegations against Jyske Bank are directly illegal, that is, in accordance with the provisions of the law to present to the court.
🙂
Lundgrens writes they are entitled to refuse to comply with an instruction if this would violate legislation or other rules, e.g. rules of good practice.
2nd
If it is against good practice for Lundgren’s lawyers to stop Jyske Bank’s fraud cases against Lundgren’s former client, then Lundgren’s lawyers have not written anything about it.
Lundgrens it is for fun
laughs
Didn’t you like that Dan Terkildsen 🙂
Måske Lundgrens advokater ikke har forstået hvad Klienten klart har skrevet.
–
3.1 Lundgrens agerer på grundlag af og i overensstemmelse med klientens instrukser, og klienten og Lundgrens aftaler løbende den juridiske bistand og omfanget af opdraget samt klientens og andres medvirken.
1.
Lundgrens advokater har ikke skrevet, noget om, at nogle af deres klients svig påstande mod Jyske Bank, er direkte ulovlige, altså efter lovens bestemmelser at fremlægge for retten.
🙂
Lundgrens skriver de er berettiget til at nægte at efterkomme en instruks, såfremt dette ville krænke lovgivning eller andre regler, f.eks. regler om god advokatskik.
2.
Hvis det er mod god advokat skik, for Lundgrens advokater, at stoppe Jyske Banks svigforretninger mod Lundgrens tidligere klint, så har Lundgrens advokater ikke skrevet noget om det.
Lundgrens det er for sjov
Griner syntes du ikke også det Dan Terkildsen 🙂