David Kluft asks: “Can I get an advisory ruling from the court on whether hiring a new associate will create a conflict of interest?” —
- “In a MT putative class action case, the lead plaintiff’s counsel wanted to hire a lateral partner who, while at another firm, had represented one of the defendants in the same case.”
- “Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a motion to the court seeking assurance that the hire would not create a disqualifying conflict of interest.”
- “The defendant opposed on the grounds that there was no real justiciable controversy, since nobody had been hired yet. The court agreed, nothing that the ‘the advisory opinion rule is the oldest and most consistent threat in the federal law of justiciability.’ Therefore, ‘it would not be appropriate for the Court to offer its views on potential conflicts that could arise’ from the hire.”
- “However, the court warned that the lateral partner already had access to sensitive information, that all the lawyers had obligations under Rule 1.9 (former client conflict of interest), and that the court expects ‘strict compliance’ with their ethical obligations. In other words: maybe don’t make the hire until the case is over.”
- Details: here.
“Conflict Lawsuits Against Am Law 200 Firms Emerge in Law.com Radar Roundup” —
- “A raft of lawsuits targeted Am Law 200 firms in March, with several cases filed by former clients leveling conflict claims… Law.com Radar surfaced 36 new lawsuits naming Am Law 200 firms as defendants in March, most of them alleging legal malpractice, with a smattering of other types of cases bringing some remarkable allegations. The platform also detected 18 new lawsuits filed by Big Law firms as plaintiffs, the majority of which allege unpaid legal fees.”
- “Among the conflict cases, Venable and firm partner Christopher Moran were sued in a $3.5 million complaint on March 10 in state court in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs Ryan Wert and his business Brightstar Partners Insurance Services allege that when Moran drafted business agreements for Wert and three other potential business associates related to tax and insurance services, Moran told Wert that his interests were protected and that no conflict of interest existed. The suit, brought by Dyer Law Firm, claims that, after a dispute arose among Wert and the others, Wert discovered that the others’ interests had been prioritized over his and that the contracts contained a provision that was illegal. Neither Moran nor Venable responded to requests for comment.”
- “Dickinson Wright and partner Jeffrey Kass were hit with a conflicts lawsuit brought by Empire Auto Protect, alleging that Kass simultaneously represented both Empire and CarShield, which are competing automotive repair plan companies, without Empire’s consent. The suit, filed by Axenfeld Law Group on March 25 in New Jersey federal court, claims that the law firm then used Empire’s confidential information to file a trademark infringement suit against Empire on CarShield’s behalf. Neither Dickinson Wright nor Kass responded to a request for comment.”
- “Katten Muchin Rosenman and partners Charles Harris, Tye Klooster and Louis Laski face a conflicts suit that alleges the firm’s joint tax and estate planning representation of plaintiff Susan Glikin and her former husband resulted in the improper transfer of ‘tens of millions of dollars’ in marital property to a trust that gave her ex-husband effective control. The case, brought by law firm Bruck McInerney, was filed in Illinois state court on March 13. Neither the firm nor the partners responded to a request for comment.”
- “Foley Hoag and partner Kristyn DeFilipp were sued in a case brought by Torrey Ah-Tye, who alleges that DeFilipp represented her and Meenta Inc., a lab equipment company, in defending a wage lawsuit against the company that settled. The suit claims that DeFilipp failed to inform Ah-Tye that one of Foley Hoag’s lawyers was employed by or was an officer of the company at the same time. The case, brought by Phillips, Silver, Talman, Aframe & Sinrich in Massachusetts state court on March 19, claims that as a ‘mere employee’ of Meenta, Ah-Tye should have been told that she needed independent counsel in defending the wage case. A Foley Hoag spokesperson responded to a request for comment from DeFilipp: ‘Foley Hoag has never represented this individual and believes these claims are entirely without merit.’”
“Morgan Lewis Dodges DQ in Meta Smart Glasses IP Suit” —
- “Solos primarily argues that Morgan Lewis’s prior representation of Kopin is ‘substantially related’ to this litigation and creates a conflict of interest that requires disqualification under Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9 because Morgan Lewis owes confidentiality obligations to Solos as Solos was a business division within Kopin, Morgan Lewis’s client, before the spin-off.”
- “Morgan Lewis counters that Solos has never been its client and that, in any case, there is no substantial relationship between Morgan Lewis’s corporate work on the 2019 transactions and the current patent-infringement lawsuit.”
- “Here, Morgan Lewis’s representation of Kopin during the 2019 transactions does not require Morgan Lewis’s disqualification in this litigation under Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9, for two reasons. First, Morgan Lewis’s counselling of Kopin did not create an attorney-client relationship between Morgan Lewis and Solos because (1) ‘[t]he assignment of a patent does not transfer an attorney client relationship,’ … and (2) ‘courts have held that ‘representation adverse to a former client’s affiliate is proper unless there is a high degree of operational commonality and financial dependence between the affiliated entities,’’ Evolutionary Intel., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-cv-00784, 2013 WL 12140485, at *14 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2013) (citing GSI Com. Sols., Inc. v. BabyCenter, L.L.C., 618 F.3d 204, 210–11 (2d Cir. 2010)).”
- “Neither Morgan Lewis’s representation of Kopin before the spin-off of Solos—a spin-off during which the newly formed Solos was represented by separate counsel—nor Kopin’s current minority ownership interest in Solos transforms Solos into Morgan Lewis’s client for purposes of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.9”
- “Second, even if an attorney-client relationship existed between Morgan Lewis and Solos, there is no substantial relationship between any former representation by Morgan Lewis of Solos and its current representation of Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. Morgan Lewis’s work on discrete corporate-law issues during the 2019 transactions appears entirely unrelated to the issues in the instant patent-infringement dispute.”
Stephan is the sports journalist for the Maple Grove Report.
