Reference no: EM131659186

Question: A Question of Ethics. The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the proceedings' two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973 (the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm). If Daigle did not sign the note, McGowan said that he would withdraw from the case, forcing Daigle to get another attorney or continue to trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress. [Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Daigle, 84 Conn.App. 843, 855 A.2d 996 (2004)]

1 What are the requirements for the use of duress as a defense to a contract? Are the requirements met here?

2 What might the law firm argue in response to Daigle's assertion? Did the law firm act unethically? Explain.