Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlement with Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $1,000, from Doctor, After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract, stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. ". In an action by Doctor against First upon First's employment contract with Victim, First is likely to argue in defense that
the anti-assignment clause in First's contract with Victim is void as against public policy. First has relied to his detriment on Victim's letter of release. third parties cannot acquire valid claims under an attorney-client contract. Doctor has not materially changed his position in reliance upon First's employment contract
Question: Victim, injured by Driver in an auto accident, employed attorney First to represent him in the matter. Victim was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment. Accordingly, First wrote into their contract his promise to Victim "to pay from any settlement with Driver compensation to any physician who provides professional services for Victim's injuries." The contract also provided that First's duties were "nonassignable." First immediately filed suit against Driver. Victim then sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $1,000, from Doctor, After receiving a bill from Doctor for $1,000, Victim immediately wrote Doctor explaining that he was unable to pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with First. Victim then asked First about payment of this bill, but First requested a release from their employment contract, stating that he would like to refer Victim's claim to attorney Second and that Second was willing to represent Victim in the pending lawsuit. Victim wrote a letter to First releasing him from their contract and agreeing to Second's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to Doctor. Second subsequently promised First to represent Victim and soon negotiated a settlement of Victim's claim against Driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by Victim to creditors other than Doctor. Victim remains insolvent but failed to inform Doctor of First's promise. ". In an action by Doctor against First upon First's employment contract with Victim, First is likely to argue in defense that
A. the anti-assignment clause in First's contract with Victim is void as against public policy.
B. First has relied to his detriment on Victim's letter of release.
C. third parties cannot acquire valid claims under an attorney-client contract.
D. Doctor has not materially changed his position in reliance upon First's employment contract
Answer: