Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Third Circuit Holds Ethical Screen Insulates Side-Switching Lawyer's New Firm
The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court's denial of a defendant's motion to disqualify the plaintiff's law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had "complied with" American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who "moved from" the defendant's law firm "to the [plaintiff's] firm" was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified. W's ethical "screen was sufficient to prevent [B's] conflict from being imputed to the entire firm [W]." Id. at *1. The Model Rules, applicable here, did not impute B's "conflict to her new firm," said the court, because "a timely screen, together with certain other requirements," prevented "conflict imputation." Id.
Relevance
Maxus shows the practical problems that arise when law firm partners move from one firm to another. The court's reading of the Model Rules is not controversial. The facts, however, are provocative, as shown below. Left unmentioned in the Maxus opinion is any concern for B's former client who apparently felt betrayed.
Facts
B worked on the litigation for her former firm (S) for roughly three years before moving to W. She was part of the S team that pitched the defendant as a client; participated in key strategy meetings; appeared on the client's behalf at bankruptcy court hearings, including a motion to dismiss; and billed at least 300 hours on the engagement. B "started dating the head of W's restructuring group" in 2017, "before she pitched [S] to [the defendant as a prospective client]" in 2018. Id. "In late 2018 [B and L's] relationship became exclusive, and they lived together starting in 2019." Id. According to the Third Circuit, it was "unclear from the record whether [the defendant, B's client] knew" about the relationship but the defendant denied any such knowledge. While engaged to marry [L], [B] moved to his firm [W]. Id. at *2.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Holy Fair Use, Batman": Copyright, Fair Use and the Dark Knight
The copyright for the original versions of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse have expired. Now, members of the public can create — and are busy creating — their own works based on these beloved characters. Suppose, though, we want to tell stories using Batman for which the copyright does not expire until 2035. We'll review five hypothetical works inspired by the original Batman comic and analyze them under fair use.