Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Q: I am in the middle of some litigation and it has now become apparent that one of the other side's key witnesses on a critical point is a current client of one of my partners. Does that pose any problems for me?
A: Yes it does. Under DR 5-105, a lawyer is not to undertake, or continue in, employment on behalf of one client if it is likely to involve the lawyer in representing the differing interests of another client. As explained in ABA Formal Opinion 92-367, when a lawyer finds him- or herself having to cross examine a current client as an adverse witness, he or she is faced with exactly that type of dilemma. It does not matter whether the client is a fact witness or an expert witness, or whether the examination is at trial or in discovery. In either case, the lawyer's duty of loyalty to his client/witness precludes him or her from acting in such an adverse capacity.
A similar situation can arise when the adverse witness is a former rather than a current client. In that case, however, it is not the lawyer's duty of loyalty that creates the problem because that duty generally ends with the conclusion of the representation. Rather, it is the lawyer's duty to maintain client confidences and secrets, which continues even after the attorney client relationship has ended, which can create the problem. Where there is a substantial relationship between the current matter and the prior representation of the former client/witness, or confidential information acquired in the course of the prior representation of the former client/witness is potentially relevant in the new matter, DR 5-105 is likely to preclude the lawyer from similarly acting in an adverse manner to the former client/witness.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.