Did the new firm adequately rebut the presumption that the lateral shared the previously acquired confidential information with the new firm? No (not rebutted) DQ (new firm can’t take case/must withdraw) Yes (rebutted) no disqualification! o Requires : (1) Proof of adequate & timely screening mechanisms AND (2) Proof that lateral’s info is unlikely to be significant or material 3 Factors Affecting Outcome in NYS : (1) Amount of confidential info the lateral had access to in prior representation, (2) Lateral’s level of involvement in prior representation, and (3) How rigorous the ethical screen is Old Firm’s Ability to Take on New Clients ( 1.10(b) ) – If lateral works at Firm A and represents client X and brings client X with him to Firm B, old Firm A is permitted to represent a new client in case against client X (even if it involves same/similar subject matter) Case Studies “You Don’t Know Anything” – Sherry was a litigation associate at PBIM for 3 years. PRIM represented AxiMartin as outside counsel on trans and lit matters (sometimes working with Axi’s in-house attys). Sherry worked on a mix of litigation matters for Axi, including employment claims for age discrimination. Sherry left PRIM and went to work for CCC. CCC partner asked her to assist on a case that a CCC client was bringing against emplr Axi for sex discrimination. Is there a conflict? Answer: There is a successive conflict because there Axi is a former client of Sherry’s. Since it’s possible that she could have received pertinent, confidential info of Axi’s during her prior representation (re Axi’s employment cases), she cannot work on the employment case against Axi. Look at DQ steps. Also could have learned strategie, policies and procedures which would be detrimental to the other side. o Note the playbook issue – Under Rule 1.10 , Sherry’s conflict is imputed to the rest of her firm. CCC cannot take the case against Axi. “Can We Hire Taylor Monk?” KGR handles products liability defense work for client, “Admiral”, who manufactures toasters Admiral currently has 40 products liability claims pending against them. KGR is considering hiring a new atty, Taylor Monk, who currently works for a firm that represents a P in one of the 40 prod liability claims against Admiral. Monk says that only work she did on the case was writing a legal memo on punitive damages and federal preemption issues and research on industry writing standards (about 24 hrs of work). Monk has also attended special meetings with her old firm and other prod liab (P) firms where they discuss strategies for representing plaintiffs who have toaster produdct liability claims. The group discusses strategies and shares legal research and info from investigations and laboratory tests. Can the firm hire Taylor Monk without being conflicted out of representing Admiral?
- Spring '14
- ........., Lawyer, law firm, Attorney-client privilege, Attys