1 / 7

C. “SWITCHING SIDES”: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

MRPC 1.9 para . (c) basic duty: confidentiality (1) don’t use conf. info relating to prior rep. to disadvantage of former client (2) don’t reveal conf info unless permitted by rules

dareh
Télécharger la présentation

C. “SWITCHING SIDES”: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MRPC 1.9 para. (c) basic duty: confidentiality (1) don’t use conf. info relating to prior rep. to disadvantage of former client (2) don’t reveal conf info unless permitted by rules para. (a) prior rep. by particular L: no new client w/o informed consent confirmed in writing if: (i) same or substantially related matter & (ii) new C “materially adverse” to former C para. (b) prior rep by L’s former firm’s C: no new C for L w/o informed consent conf. in writing if: (i) same or subst. rel. matter & materially adverse (ii) L had acquired conf. info material to matter C. “SWITCHING SIDES”: DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS

  2. Problem pp. 347-8 • Prior firm gen outside counsel for Bramco, worked on case involving bridge collapse, allegation of defective steel supplied by B • New practice, new C as P in diff. bridge collapse, Bramco supplied steel, apparently defective, B is appropriate D in new C’s suit, you got no conf info on this bridge in prior rep – can you accept this case? • cf. cases in n. 1 p. 354

  3. Problem pp. 347-8 c’t’d • Would it make a difference in question (a) if the apparent cause was supply of the wrong steel for the project? • What if you hadn’t actually worked on the Mass. bridge case when with the prior firm? Kanaga, and n. 2 pp 354-5.

  4. Problem pp. 347-8 c’t’d • Assume instead that the new suit on Illinois bridge would name all parties to Mass. case exceptBramco, which lost the bid for the steel on that K. Motion by gen. contractor D to disqualify you. • What theory would support such a motion? • on our facts, should it succeed? Cf. Armco, p. 351 and n.3 p. 355

  5. D. IMPUTED DISQUALIFICATION • Problem pp. 355-6: • Back to original Mass. bridge case, where P&C Chicago reps Bramco ; P&C also has Boston office, run separately; Boston office is asked to rep person injured in Mass collapse – can it do so? • are the two offices a “firm”? Cf. Sexson, p. 356, and n. 2 p. 358 • could any one lawyer take both reps? • what about the “personal interest of the prohibited lawyer” exception in 1.10(a)(1)?

  6. Problem pp. 355-6 c’t’d • Suppose that the Boston office takes the screening measures described in question (b) p. 356, in writing sent to each client • can the representations continue? Lennartson, p. 367; MRPC 1.10(a)(2) (2009!), compared to pre-2009 version; Manning, n. 2 p. 374 • is consent of both clients required? Is it possible here?

  7. D(2) Imputation in Public Interest Organizations • To what extent are imputation rules applied to public defender, legal aid and other non-profit organizations? • is such an office a “firm”? MRPC 1.10 Comment 1; MRPC 1.0(c); T’Challa D. p. 360 • does the non-profit character of the org. justify not applying a per se rule? Borden, n. 1 p. 365 • if different agency attorneys represent different clients who come into conflict, is withdrawal of the agency from both required?

More Related