Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Time On Your Side? (Sometimes, Sometimes Not) – Conflicts, Disqualifications & Billing Records



Several interesting updates to share. First up: "Tensegrity DQ'ed in Suit Against Former Weil Client" --
  • "It's been nearly 10 years since Matthew Powers and Steven Cherensky handled patent and trade secret cases for Micron Technology Inc. while working at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. But on Friday they were disqualified from a case against Micron and their former law firm over the same NAND flash technology. Despite the passage of time and updates to NAND, U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews ruled there was still too much risk that Micron's confidences could be used against the company."
  • "'In addition, the fact that Messrs. Powers and Cherensky might be required to depose and cross examine the very same witnesses they previously represented creates the appearance of switching sides,' Andrews wrote in Innovative Memory Solutions v. Micron Technology."
  • "It's the second time Powers has been disqualified from a case against a former client since leaving Weil Gotshal in 2011 to launch Tensegrity Law Group, a plaintiff-side intellectual property firm. Powers represented numerous big technology companies during his 18 years at Weil, so steering clear of conflicts at Tensegrity has posed some challenges."
  • "Powers and Chernesky billed 4,000 hours on patent and trade secret cases for Micron and Lexar, a company Micron acquired in 2006, according to Andrews' opinion. Micron intends to argue that the Innovative Memory patents can be traced to confidential trade secrets that leaked from Lexar, so that previous representation is directly at issue, Micron argues."
Next: "Sydney law firm ruled to be in conflict" --
  • "A Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice has ruled a Sydney law firm made a mistake in accepting a retainer from a client involved in a land dispute with another client represented by the firm. In a decision released Wednesday, Justice Frank Edwards granted the application by Jacqueline Lappin that the firm of Sampson McDougall was in a conflict and should not represent another client with whom Lappin was embroiled in a land dispute."
  • "In September, construction began and Lappin contacted senior and founding partner of the firm, Robert Sampson, who advised she had a good case for establishing an easement and that he would speak to the previous owner of the property. Further, Sampson said he would write to Bauer demanding he halt the construction of the fence."
  • "In a conversation with a firm representative later in the month, Lappin was advised the firm was in a conflict and would not be able to represent her."
  • "There is no evidence that, prior to accepting the respondent's (Bauer) retainer, Sampson McDougall conducted a conflict check and satisfied itself that it was not in possession of confidential information from the applicant (Lappin)," Edwards wrote, adding that from the outset he would disqualify Sampson McDougall on the basis of having represented Lappin in 2010...He said the evidence of Lappin was clear in that she considered herself to be an ongoing client of the firm, and that contact with firm members was in accordance with that belief."
Finally: "Billing Records Are Confidential Even if They Contain No Legal Advice" --
  • "Billing statements are 'confidential communications' within the meaning of California's attorney-client privilege statute and thus categorically exempt from disclosure under the state's public records law, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held April 13."
  • "The ruling—which answers a question of first impression that has divided courts around the country—denied a petition that the ACLU of Southern California filed after Los Angeles County officials rejected an open records request for the billing invoices of law firms to which the county paid nearly $40 million in a single year to defend it against a spate of police brutality lawsuits."
  • "Writing for the court, Justice Richard D. Aldrich said the county validly invoked a statutory exemption that applies to records containing confidential communications protected by the attorney-client privilege."
  • "The court said there was no controlling case law on “whether billing statements qualify as privileged communications” under Cal. Evid. Code §952, which codifies the attorney-client privilege."

No comments:

Post a Comment