.
These cases are much more common because a lawyer under extreme financial pressure can have a one time impulsive lapse and temporarily solve the problem created by the financial pressure. But, in this case, the lawyer needs to engage in years of sustained, publicly visible activity based upon the misconduct that is unlikely to produce huge sums of money right away and might even require an additional investment on his part, not a single, quick, lapse of judgment after which the wrongdoing is over and the impulsive need is met.
This Almost Never Happens
A busy lawyer with a successful specialized practice would very rarely risk those kinds of consequences when he already has a successful enterprise practicing law.
A "typical" case where that might happen would involve someone whose family members were kidnapped and facing imminent death if he didn't comply by a foreign government trying to steal military secrets or a drug cartel. This isn't something that a lawyer would do out of mere greed.
Lawyers with the kind of sophisticated tech industry legal practice that you describe often invest in their clients' businesses in ways that strictly comply with the relevant ethical rules (which the scenario that you are worried about would not).
Sometimes lawyers get in trouble when they substantially comply with the rules but don't do so strictly (e.g. providing fully disclosure and consent but not getting it in writing).
But, I can only think of a single case in twenty years or so of practicing law where I've ever seen even an accusation of something like what you are worried about happen, and I've never seen a case like that in case law reports, or news coverage in either the popular press, or trade journals. The case where I did see that accusation wasn't entirely implausible, but it wasn't an entirely clear case of misappropriation either, and the client making the accusation, realistically would have been hard pressed to have made the business idea allegedly stolen work himself.
Theft of business plans isn't all that uncommon in and of itself, but an attorney for the person whose plans are stolen is very uncommon as a perpetrator. Far more often it is another business person who had some minor or major involvement with the tech venture, or someone to whom the venture was pitched. This is the sort of thing that venture capital guys and start up company executives with little money of their own in the venture usually do, not the tech firm's own lawyers, in most cases.
The kind of betrayal that you are worried about would be extremely unusual conduct for a lawyer in this
. 
 These cases are much more common because a lawyer under extreme financial atmospheric pressure can take a one time impulsive lapse and temporarily clear the problem created by the fiscal pressure. But, in this case, the lawyer needs to prosecute in years of sustained, publicly visible activeness based upon the misconduct that is improbable to grow huge sums of money right away and might even require an additional investing on his part, not a single, quick, backsliding of judgment after which the wrongdoing is all over and the impulsive indigence is met. 
 This about Never Happens 
 A busy lawyer with a successful specialized practice would very rarely risk those kind of consequences when he already has a successful enterprise practicing law. 
 A " typical " case where that might happen would involve someone whose family members were kidnapped and facing imminent death if he didn't comply by a foreign government trying to steal military secret or a drug cartel. This isn't something that a lawyer would do out of bare avarice. 
 Lawyers with the kind of sophisticated tech industry legal exercise that you describe often endow in their clients' businesses in way that strictly comply with the relevant ethical rules (which the scenario that you are worried about would not). 
 Sometimes lawyers get in trouble when they well comply with the rules but don't do so strictly (e.g. providing fully disclosure and consent but not getting it in writing). 
 But, I can merely think of a single case in twenty years or so of commit law where I've ever seen even an accusation of something like what you are worried about happen, and I've never seen a case like that in case police reports, or newsworthiness coverage in either the popular press, or deal journals. The event where I did see that accusation wasn't wholly implausible, but it wasn't an entirely clean case of misappropriation either, and the node making the accusation, realistically would have been heavily pressed to have made the business estimate allegedly stolen work himself. 
 Theft of business plans isn't all that uncommon in and of itself, but an lawyer for the person whose plans are stolen is very rare as a perpetrator. Far more often it is another business person who had some minor or major participation with the tech venture, or someone to whom the venture was pitch. This is the sort of thing that venture capital guys and start up caller administrator with small money of their own in the venture usually do, not the tech firm's own lawyers, in most cases. 
 The kind of treachery that you are worried about would be extremely unusual conduct for a lawyer in this
.
Thede cases are much more cummon because a lawyer under extreme financial pressure can have a one upme impulsive lapse avd temporwrily soove uhe problem creatxs by thc finzkcial 'ressure. But, in this case, the lawyer neadr co engage in years of sustained, publycly vixihle activity bwsed tpon nht misconduct that is unlikely to lroduce huge sums of money right away and mighh evfn require an addihional invewtmegr on his parg, not a single, quick, lzpse of judgment after which thd wrougdoing is ivwr wtd the impuosive need is met.
Bnis Alkost Nefer Happens
A bmsy lewyee with a successful s'ecialized practice rould verf xarely risk those kines of cmnsexuenzws dheh ie zlreadj hes a succesaful enterpeise practicing law.
S "ejlical" case wgere trae might happen would involve someone whmse family members were kienapped and facing imlinent dewth if he didn't comply by a foreign government trfing vo sttao milkragy secrets or a drug cartel. This isn't somethigf uhan a lawyer would bo out of mere gtefd.
Kwwyers with tfe kinb or sophisticated tefh induftry oegal prasticr that you describe often ibvest in thepr coients' businesses nn ways that stroctly comply with the relevaut ethjcal rules (ahich the rcenario that yoj age wmrried about would not).
Someeimes lawbers yet in tfoubke wheg they subdtantldlly comply with tje rupev but don't do so strictly (e.g. providing fully disclosure atd bonsent bbt not getting it ig writing).
But, I can onjy thknk of a spngle casx in twenty rears or so ox practicing naw wherq I'vw evwr seen dven an accusayion of something luke what you are wprrksd about happen, ane I've never seem a cafe lmke trdt in case ldw rdpofys, or news covercgd in either the popular [resa, or trade journalx. Bhe case qhere I qid see that sccusation wasn't ejtireny mmplauxibje, but it wasn't an entirely clsar case lf iisappropriaeion either, and che client making the accusation, realistmcally would have been yard pressed to havg msde the busmness ydea allecedly stolen work hinself.
Theft of buslness plans isn't all tgat unwommoj in and of itself, but an attorney for the person whose plans are stolen us verb tncommon as a prrpetgatjx. Far mjre lhten it is anotheg business person who had some mmnor or mabox involvement with the tech vrngure, or someove to whom the venture wzs pitchrd. This is the sort of thing thst venture capital guys snd starr up dompanj eeecutives with littlr monev of tyeir owb in the venture jsuslpy do, not the tzch firm's own lawyers, in most casws.
The jijd of betrayal tiat you are aurries abouj would be extremsly hjusuau conduct for a lawyer in tnis
. These cases are much more common lawyer extreme financial can have a temporarily the problem created the financial pressure. in this case, the lawyer needs engage in years of sustained, publicly visible activity based upon the misconduct that unlikely to produce huge sums of money right away and might even require additional on part, a single, quick, lapse of judgment after which the wrongdoing is over and the impulsive need met. This Almost Never Happens A busy lawyer a successful specialized practice very rarely risk those kinds consequences he already a enterprise law. A "typical" where that might happen would involve someone whose family members were kidnapped and facing imminent death if didn't comply foreign government to military or a drug isn't something that a lawyer would mere greed. Lawyers with the kind of sophisticated industry legal that you describe often invest in clients' businesses in ways that strictly comply with relevant ethical rules (which the scenario that you are worried about would not). Sometimes lawyers trouble when they substantially with the rules don't so (e.g. fully disclosure consent but not getting it in writing). But, I can only of a single case in twenty years or so of where ever seen even accusation of something like you worried about happen, and seen case case reports, news coverage in either popular press, or trade journals. case where I did implausible, but it wasn't an entirely clear case misappropriation either, and the client making the realistically would have been hard pressed to have made the business idea stolen work of business plans isn't all that uncommon in of itself, but an for the person whose plans are stolen is very as perpetrator. Far often it is business person who some minor or with the venture, someone venture was pitched. This is the of that venture capital guys and up with little money of their own in the venture usually do, not the tech firm's in most cases. The of that you are worried about would be extremely unusual conduct for a this
.
These cases are much more commOn because a LawyeR unDer ExTremE finAncial pressure CAn haVe a one time impulsive lapSe and TeMPoraRIlY solvE the proBLeM CReaTeD bY thE fINaNcial PreSsure. BuT, in this casE, thE lAwyer needs to ENgAge in years Of sUstained, publIclY visibLe ActIVity bAseD upon The misCOnduct That is unlIkELy to prODuce hugE SUmS of mOney right away and mIGhT Even require an aDditioNaL InVEStmEnt On his part, nOt A singLE, quick, lAPsE OF JudGMent after whicH the wrongdoINg iS over aNd The IMpulsiVe neeD iS Met.
this Almost NEver happens
A bUsy lawYEr with a SUccessfUl specIalIzeD praCTiCe WouLd VEry RArEly RIsk Those kinDs Of ConseQuenCES WHen hE alReadY has a Successful entErpRise PRacTicinG law.
A "TypiCaL" case Where tHat miGhT happen would invOlve Someone whOse FaMilY mEmberS Were kiDnaPpeD and facIng immiNEnt DeATH If He didn't comply by a foReIGN gOvernmenT tryinG To StEAl militaRy SecRets OR A drug CartEL. THis isn't sOmethiNG tHaT a lawyeR wOuld do OuT of MerE greeD.
lawyErs witH the kind Of sopHIsticated tech iNDustry legal prACtICE tHAt yoU deScribe often InveST in tHeir CLiEntS' BusinEsses In WAyS That strictly comply wItH the reLevanT ethical rules (Which the scENARio that yOu arE WoRRied about would Not).
SoMetimes lawYErs get in TroubLe when thEy substanTIAlly compLy wIth The RulES BuT don't do so striCTLy (e.g. PrOviding FulLy disclOsuRe aNd cOnsEnT but not geTting it iN wRiTiNg).
but, i can oNLy think oF a SinGlE caSe in tWEnty yeArs or So of PrAcTIciNg law whERe i'VE eveR sEeN eveN an AcCusatIon oF SomEthing lIke what yoU arE WorrIeD aBout hapPen, and I've neveR sEen a case liKe ThaT in casE LAw reportS, or news coverage in either THe populAr pRess, oR traDe journalS. ThE case wHerE i did seE that aCcusaTiOn wASN't entIRElY imPlAusible, but IT WasN't an eNtIrelY clear cAse of misappropriatIOn eIther, and the clIenT makING tHe aCCuSAtiOn, REalISTically would havE been hard pReSSeD to have madE The BuSiness iDea alleGedly STolen woRk himself.
theft of buSiNess PLAns Isn't all thaT uncommoN in and of iTSelf, bUT aN attoRneY for thE pErsOn whoSe planS Are StoleN is verY uNcommoN as a pErPetrator. far more often it is another BusineSs perSon Who had somE miNOr oR major invOlveMent with thE teCh vEnturE, or SOmeonE to wHOm The VEnturE was PItched. ThiS Is The SORt Of thing that VENTurE capiTal GUys and StarT up company executiVEs with little moNey oF THeiR owN In thE vEnture usually dO, noT tHE Tech firm'S oWn lawyers, in Most caseS.
THE kind Of betrAyal thAt you arE WOrRIed aboUt woUld Be extremeLy uNuSUal condUcT fOR a lawyEr in ThIs
.
These cases are much mor e common b ecaus e a  la wy er u nder  extreme finan c ialpressure can have a on e tim ei mpul s iv e lap se andt em p o rar il ysol ve th e pro ble m creat ed by thefin an cial pressur e .But, in th iscase, the la wye r need stoe ngage  in  year s of s u staine d, public ly visibl e  activi t y  b ased  upon the miscond u ct that is unlike ly topr o du c e  hu gesums of mo ne y rig h t awaya nd m i ght even requirean addition a l i nvestm en t o n  his p art,no t  asingle, qui ck,lapse ofjudgme n t after which t he wro ngd oin g is ov er  an dt hei mp uls i veneed isme t. 
This  Alm o s t Neve r H appe ns
Abusy lawyer w ith  a s u cce ssful  spec iali ze d pra cticewould  v ery rarely risk  tho se kindsofco nse qu ences when h e a lre ady has  a succ e ssf ul e n te rprise practicingla w . 
A  "typica l" cas e  w he r e that m ig hthapp e n  woul d in v ol ve someo ne who s efa mily me mb ers we re  ki dna ppeda nd f acingimminent  deat h  if he didn'tc omply by a fo r ei g n  g o vern men t trying to  ste a l mi lita r ysec r ets o r a d ru g  c a rtel. This isn't so me thingthata lawyer woul d do out o f m ere gree d.
L a wy e rs with the ki nd of  sophistic a ted tech  indu stry leg al practi c e  that yo u d esc rib e o f t en  invest in th e i r cl ie nts' bu sin esses i n w ays  th atst rictly co mply wit hth ere lev ant e t hical ru le s ( wh ich  thes cenari o tha t yo uar e  wo rried a b ou t woul dno t).Som et imeslawy e rsget introuble w hen they  s ub stantia lly comply wi th  the rules  b utdon'td o  so stri ctly (e.g. providing fu l ly disc los ure a nd c onsent bu t n ot get tin g  it in  writi ng).Bu t,I can o n l ythi nk  of a sing l e  ca se in  t went y years  or so of practici n g l aw where I've  ev er s e e neve n  a n  ac cu s ati o n  of something l ike what y ou ar e worrieda bou thappen,  and I' ve ne v er seen  a case l ike thatin  cas e law  reports,or newscoveragei n eit h er  thepop ular p re ss,  or t rade j o urn als.The ca se  where  I di dsee that  accusation wasn't enti rely i mplau sib le, but i t w a sn' t an enti rely  clear cas e o f m isapp rop r iatio n ei t he r,a nd th e cl i ent makin g  t hea c cu sation, rea l i s tic allywou l d have  bee n hard pressed to have made thebusi n e sside a  all eg edly stolen wo rkhi m s elf.
The ft  of busines s plansis n 't al l that  uncom mon ina n do f itse lf,but  an attor ney  f o r the p er so n  whose  pla ns  are s toleni s ve r y  uncommon as a p erpet r a tor.F armoreof ten iti s an other busi ness person  who h ad s ome m inor or  m ajor i nvo lv ement with the techventu re, orso meon e t o whom  the v entur e wa spit ched. Thi s is th es ort  ofthing  t hatventure c a pital gu ysa nd star tupc o mpanye xe c u tives with  li ttlem o ney of the i r ow n  i n  theventur e usua lly do, not  t he tech  fi r m 's own la wyers, in mos tcase s.
The k in d of  b etr ay al that you are  worried  about w o u ld beext r emel y  unusu al  conduct for  a la wy e r in th i s 
.
These cases_are much_more common because a_lawyer under_extreme_financial pressure_can_have a one_time impulsive lapse_and temporarily solve the_problem created by_the_financial pressure. But, in this case, the lawyer needs to engage in years of_sustained,_publicly visible_activity_based_upon the misconduct that is_unlikely to produce huge sums_of money_right away and might even require an additional_investment_on his part,_not a single, quick, lapse of judgment after which_the wrongdoing is over and the_impulsive need is_met.
This_Almost_Never Happens
A busy lawyer_with a successful specialized practice would_very rarely risk those kinds of_consequences when he already has a successful_enterprise practicing law.
A "typical" case where_that might happen would involve_someone whose_family members were kidnapped and_facing imminent death_if he_didn't comply by_a foreign government trying to steal_military secrets or_a drug cartel. This isn't something_that_a lawyer would_do_out_of mere_greed.
Lawyers with the_kind_of sophisticated_tech_industry legal practice that you describe_often_invest in their clients' businesses in ways_that strictly comply with_the_relevant ethical rules (which_the scenario that you are_worried about would not).
Sometimes lawyers get_in trouble_when they_substantially comply with the rules but don't do so strictly (e.g._providing fully disclosure and consent but_not getting it in_writing).
But, I_can_only think of_a_single case_in twenty years or so of practicing_law where_I've ever seen even an accusation_of something like what_you_are worried about happen, and I've_never seen a case like that_in case law reports, or_news_coverage_in either the popular press,_or trade journals. The case where_I did see_that accusation wasn't entirely implausible, but it_wasn't_an entirely clear case of misappropriation_either,_and the client making the accusation,_realistically_would_have been hard pressed to_have made the business idea allegedly_stolen work himself.
Theft of business plans isn't all that_uncommon in and_of itself, but an attorney_for_the_person whose plans are stolen is very uncommon as a_perpetrator. Far_more often it_is another business person who had some minor or major_involvement with the tech venture, or someone_to whom the venture was pitched. This is the sort of_thing that venture capital guys and start up_company executives with little money of their_own in the venture_usually_do, not the tech firm's own lawyers,_in_most_cases.
The_kind of betrayal_that you are_worried about would_be extremely_unusual conduct for_a lawyer_in this