kid is a former client 2 matter are they substantially related a Issue maybe

Kid is a former client 2 matter are they

This preview shows page 31 - 33 out of 38 pages.

1. kid is a former client 2. matter-are they substantially related a. Issue: maybe mental disease is b/c of the accident! ii. Real case result: that DA had to get out, but since it is public official, can set up a screen and the conflict isn’t imputed to the whole DA’s office b. NY : 1 st Presumption is that have confidences from the old firm and a 3nd presumption that you will share confidences of the old firm with the new firm. i. Should you be able to rebut the presumption by screening off the attorney who transferred in? You can rebut the 2 nd presumption-that you will share confidences with the 2 nd firm . 1. D. Maritrans GP v Pepper Hamilton -365 3/20/06 E. Problem 6-3- family dispute, so corp split. Lawyer was general counsel for the corp, and became general corp for one of them now. Fighting over trademark. Lawyer for other side called that you need to withdraw. a. Probably you should get out of the case, but you have 2 arguments if you want to stay: i. When was this trademark of the logo registered? If it was done a long time ago, then you wouldn’t be using any confidential info gained. ii. Maybe you only registered the trademark and didn’t do much F. Problem 6-4-The Fatal Shot- 2 lawyers share offices but are solo P’s. gang murder and 1 is hired. D tells lawyer that friend needs lawyer too and lawyer recommends one of the other lawyers. a. Conflict: i. Had access to e/o files ii. Shared secretary b. Judge would probably say that this is no good! But this is common practice in NY and hasn’t been challenged yet. It will be interesting to see if a judge needs to determine whether it is permissible or not G. Government Lawyers a. 1.9-Private Lawyer Standard: Substantially Related and Materially Adverse b. 1.11-Prior Gov lawyer Standard: whether you participated personally and substantially c. Hypo: you worked for SEC and now represent person on the same side Æ you would be disqualified b/c participated. i. BUT… you can get consent from the gov and the conflict isn’t imputed to the firm
Image of page 31