Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Third Circuit Rejects Side-Switching Disqualification Claim
The Third Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court's approved retention of the debtor's counsel ("S") when that "law firm dropped an existing client to avoid conflicts that would prevent it from taking on a more lucrative client [i.e., the debtor]." In re Boy Scouts of America, 2022 WL 1634643, *7 (3d Cir. May 24, 2022) (BSA). According to the court, there were "not enough facts to put [the so-called "hot potato" doctrine] into play" and disqualify S under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. Moreover, because S's representation of the debtor "did not prejudice [the objecting former client], but disqualifying [S] would have been a significant detriment to [the debtor], it was well within the [bankruptcy] court's discretion to determine that the drastic remedy of disqualification was unnecessary." Id. Particular facts of the case, highlighted by the court, supported its finding that there was "nowhere close to an abuse of discretion" by the bankruptcy court's applying Bankruptcy Code (Code) §327(a) to approve S's retention.
Relevance
Conflicts of interest among clients are a chronic problem for law firms with many clients. How law firms address the problem — and they must — is what the BSA decision shows. The decision also shows the problems law firms have in balancing their ethical obligations against the desire for more business. In BSA, S was held to have acted properly, but one client still felt "jilted," if not betrayed. Id. at *1.
Facts
S had represented an insurer ("C") "in obtaining backup coverage from reinsurers of [C's] policies." Id. at *1. S "also represented the [debtor] in its restructuring efforts under the… Code…." Id. The debtor "made coverage claims under [C's] policies, [but] did so while represented by another firm ["H"]," excluding S from that work. S's "reinsurance services for [C] were limited to claims made against the reinsurers (and not [the debtor])." "That representation did not extend to the underlying direct insurance issued by [C] to [the debtor]." Id. Still, C "claimed a conflict concerning [S's] representation of it [and the debtor]," objecting to the debtor's motion to retain S in the bankruptcy court. C's objection "only concerned the ability of [S] to represent [the debtor]," but the bankruptcy court found that S "could do so effectively" after approving S's retention.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?