Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Decisions of Note: Conflicts Allegations & Disqualifications


When it comes to expert Bill Freivogel, we're not exactly sure when he has time to do things other than legal research (though we know he does). Here are several recent decisions he's flagged:
  • "HLP Props., LLC v. Con. Ed. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147416 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2014). Law Firm found itself representing Parent Co. on corporate matters and against Subsidiary Co. on a long-running environmental matter (this case). Sub Co. moved to disqualify Law Firm in this case. In this opinion the court denied the motion. First, the court found that Parent and Sub were one for conflicts purposes, noting, among other factors, that they shared a law department. In effect, the court applied a balancing/'no harm, no foul' test. First, the court noted how prejudiced Sub’s client would be if it lost Law Firm in this case. Second, the court noted that different offices and different lawyers were involved at Law Firm and that there was no sharing of Parent’s information. Though ruling for Law Firm, the court said that Law Firm’s failure to obtain waivers from Sub and Parent when it began representing Parent was 'troubling.'
  • "Anderson & Anderson LLP-Guangzhou v. N. Am. Foreign Trading Corp., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 20, 2014). Client hired Lawyer to collect an arbitration award. Lawyer drafted the contingent fee agreement between Lawyer’s law firm 'Law Firm') and Client. Law Firm, representing itself, brought this action against Client to enforce the fee agreement. Client moved to disqualify Lawyer in this case. In this opinion the court disqualified Lawyer and Law Firm under Rule 1.9 (former client rule). The court also ruled that Lawyer, but not Law Firm, was disqualified under Rule 3.7 (lawyer as witness)."
  • "The Copper Cellar Corp. v. Ole Smokey Distillery, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146054 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 2014). Trademark case. Lawyer for Defendant has in the past done trademark work for Plaintiff. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Lawyer in this case. In this opinion the magistrate judge denied the motion. In a fact-intensive analysis the court noted that Lawyer’s work for Plaintiff involved different trademarks and said that “[t]he Court is not prepared to find that all trademark matters are substantially related” within the context of Rule 1.9."

No comments:

Post a Comment