Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
|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.
|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.
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
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 June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.