conflicts of interest concurrent and successive client, personal, and third party
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Conflicts of Interest
Concurrent and Successive
Client, Personal, and Third Party
![Page 2: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Conflicts of Interest
Conflict can be with Other client, Third party, or Attorney’s own interests
Important area – potential problems if conflict Discipline – directly or indirectly Malpractice – as a result of conflict Breach of fiduciary duty (with possible fee forfeiture) Disqualification – big area
Client conflicts can be concurrent or successive.
![Page 3: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Conflicts of Interest
Some conflicts can be waived (consentable) Others cannot (not consentable)
Successive conflicts are generally waivable with informed consent.
Concurrent conflicts are waivable only if attorney has objectively reasonable belief can provide competent representation.
Why this difference?
Conflicts generally imputed to all attorneys in firm – presumption of shared confidences -- more later.
![Page 4: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Shall not represent client if concurrent conflict of interest (unless allowed under (b)).
Concurrent conflict: Directly adverse to another client Significant risk representation(s) will be materially
limited by lawyer’s responsibilities to Another client A former client A third person A personal interest of the lawyer
![Page 5: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Rule 1.7(b)
May represent client if Reasonably believe can provide competent and
diligent representation to each affected client; Representation not prohibited by law; Representation does not involve claim by client
against another in same litigation or proceeding; AND
Each affected client gives written, informed consent.
![Page 6: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
In Re Dresser Industries, Inc.
Susman Godfrey represented Dresser Also lead counsel for P committee in antitrust action. Dresser named as defendant in that case.
Firm said would help them get new attorney. They said no.
Dresser motion to disqualify firm. District Court denied motion.
5th Circuit said abuse of discretion. Granted writ of mandamus. Law firm disqualified.
![Page 7: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Dresser questions
Why must firm be disqualified? Weren’t they going to withdraw from current
representation? What is the “hot potato” doctrine? What justifies the doctrine?
Loyalty Former client conflicts Withdrawal rules
![Page 8: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Dresser questions
Why is the court looking at Texas Rules? Do the Texas Rules control?
Federal case Consider fairness of proceeding Woods considerations
Appearance of impropriety Possibility of specific impropriety Likelihood of public suspicion outweighs interest
in continuing participation.
![Page 9: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Texas Rule 1.06
(a) Shall not represent both sides in same litigation (b) (Unless (c)) Shall not represent client if
Involves substantially related matter materially and directly adverse to client
Reasonably appears representation is or will be adversely limited by responsibilities to another client, to 3P, or lawyer’s or firm’s own interests.
(c) May represent in (b) if Reasonably believes will not be materially affected; and Each affected client consents after full disclosure of
implications, risks and advantages.
![Page 10: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Additional conflicts questions:
Could Susman Godfrey have continued to represent Drill Bits by dropping (or not joining) Dresser as a defendant?
Is ignorance an excuse in conflicts cases? Conflicts can result in
Disqualification Discipline Malpractice/ effect on result Breach of fiduciary duty, w/ or w/o fee forfeiture
![Page 11: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Bottoms v. Stapleton
Minority shareholder (P – Bottoms) sued Majority shareholder (D – Stapleton) and limited liability company (D – Paducah Gear) Claimed breach of fiduciary duty
and conversion. P moved to disqualify D
counsel T Ct disqualified as to
Paducah, not as to Stapleton. Appeal.
![Page 12: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Shall not represent client if concurrent conflict of interest (unless allowed under (b)).
Concurrent conflict: Directly adverse to another client Significant risk representation(s) will be materially
limited by lawyer’s responsibilities to Another client A former client A third person A personal interest of the lawyer
![Page 13: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Rule 1.8 (g)
A lawyer representing 2 or more clients Shall not participate in aggregate settlement
or in criminal case aggregate plea agreement Unless each client gives written, signed,
informed consent. Lawyer must disclose
Existence and nature of all claims or pleas and Participation of each person in settlement.
![Page 14: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Fiandaca v. Cunningham
Class action by female prison inmates Facilities not equivalent to those for male inmates Bench trial on merits.
D Ct found state violated equal protection Ordered construction of permanent facility. Find temporary facility
during construction. Prohibited from using grounds
of Laconia State School. Did not disqualify Ps’ lead attorney –
New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA)
![Page 15: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Fiandaca conflict
What was the alleged conflict? Is this a disciplinary proceeding?
How is the conflict issue raised? Is there a conflict?
Why did D Ct deny motion to disqualify? What is the impact of the conflict?
Whose interests are compromised? Who complained? Is this a consentable conflict?
![Page 16: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Shall not represent client if concurrent conflict of interest (unless allowed under (b)).
Concurrent conflict: Directly adverse to another client Significant risk representation(s) will be materially
limited by lawyer’s responsibilities to Another client A former client A third person A personal interest of the lawyer
![Page 17: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Fiandaca continued
What does the court (1st Circuit) do? What does the court mean in saying the motion
is not tactical? What difference would that make? How does it know?
What happens now? Who will represent the Plaintiffs now?
Is discipline likely in this case?
![Page 18: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
NOTE: Positional Conflicts and Economic Competitors
What is a positional conflict? Is it an actual conflict? What is a lawyer’s relationship to the client’s
position? What circumstances must be considered?
Is it a conflict of interest to represent businesses that are economic competitors?
![Page 19: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Holloway v. Arkansas 3 defendants charged: 1 count robbery, 2 counts rape.
T Ct appointed Harold Hall – public defender – to represent all 3. Hall moved for appointment of separate counsel –
Possibility of conflict of interest Court denied motion (twice).
All 3 were convicted on all counts. Ds appealed – claimed ineffective
assistance of counsel. State Supreme Court affirmed –
no actual conflict or prejudice. Ds appeal to U.S. Supreme Court. What did Supreme Court decide?
![Page 20: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Conflict of interest in Holloway
How can there be a conflict? Aren’t they all on the same side? Want the same result? Have consistent stories?
Different interests of clients: Need to cross-examine other Ds. Possible need to impeach.
Did this make a difference here? Didn’t they all have the same story? Not there? Don’t Ds need to show prejudice? How were the client/witnesses presented?
![Page 21: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Showing of prejudice not required.
Prejudice very difficult to prove. Why? Prejudice very likely. Why? What kinds of situations could cause prejudice?
Plea bargains Decision to testify or not. Content of testimony. Disparate impact of evidence. Relative innocence or culpability. Sentencing concerns.
So why not just have a rule that an attorney can’t represent >1 defendant in same case?
If seek separate counsel, generally reversible if court denies.
![Page 22: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Other developments In Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980) Ds did not seek separate counsel.
For ineffective assistance, must show Actual conflict Adverse effect on performance
No duty to inquire about conflict unless know or have reason to know there is a conflict.
Mickens v. Taylor (2002) – Failure to inquire alone not grounds for reversal (explains Wood)
Must still show conflict adversely affected performance. Actual conflicts do adversely affect performance.
Wheat v. United States (1988) – Denial of request for multiple representation not grounds for
reversal. Why?
![Page 23: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Conflicts of interest – Former clients
Rule 1.9(a) Lawyer who has represented client in a matter Shall not represent person in same or
substantially related matter In which interests are materially adverse to former
client UNLESS former client gives written, informed
consent
![Page 24: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Substantially related matter
Various tests – consider whether . . . Matter specific
Representation will harm client RE former matter Ex: Try to avoid K drafted for client
Information specific Got information from client that could now be used against
client Ex: Use information from tax representation that can now
be used against client in divorce proceeding Both could be involved. Loyalty concerns can be factor
![Page 25: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
New Rule 1.18
Prospective client Protect confidential information Do not represent (imputed to firm) client with
interests materially adverse to prospective client in same or substantially related matter,
Unless Both parties give written, informed consent or Lawyer took reasonable measures to avoid getting more
info than necessary and Disqualified lawyer is timely screened – no part of fee Written notice given to client
![Page 26: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co.
Pearson represented Kala in litigation against ASR. Left firm, joined Duvin firm,
who represented ASR. Kala filed motion to disqualify
Court disqualified Pearson and Duvin firm. Supreme Court affirmed.
Pearson (Pearson)(old firm) Duvin Kala ASR
![Page 27: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Pearson Disqualification
Rule 1.9(a) Lawyer who has represented client in a matter Shall not represent person in same or substantially related
matter In which interests are materially adverse to former client UNLESS former client gives written, informed consent
Here, Pearson disqualified Same matter Switched sides Very involved with client Lots of information from client
![Page 28: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Disqualification of Firm
Rule 1.10(a) While lawyers in same firm None shall knowingly represent client if Any of them could not represent client under 1.7 or 1.9, Unless prohibition based on personal interest and does not
pose significant risk as to other lawyers.
Pearson is disqualified under 1.9 Disqualification is not based on personal interest Firm is disqualified – Presumption of shared confidences.
![Page 29: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Presumption of shared confidences Is presumption rebuttable?
NO! (Under rules – rule absolute) Yes, according to this court (& some others)
If so, how is it rebutted? Factually – prove not shared Apply screen/Chinese wall/cone of silence
Why allow to rebut? Mobility issues Client choice
Why not allow? Confidentiality Confidence of clients
![Page 30: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Why not allowed in this case?
“Side-switching attorney” Very involved – Lots of information Loyalty concerns – betrayal
Less weight to choice of attorney – Depriving Kala of his choice.
Negotiating with firm while representing Kala Did firm act professionally here?
Duvin now disqualified. Client must get new attorney. Firm created this problem.
![Page 31: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Variations Pearson did not work on case at old firm, but firm
represented Kala – Not disqualified. Rule 1.9(b).
Did not work on it, but discussed it at lunch? Did he acquire material information? If so, disqualified.
Wrote memo, based on hypo. No information? Unlikely got info – if not, not disqualified. If did, disqualify.
What if Pearson leaves, and takes Kala to new firm? Can old firm represent ASR? Yes, if no attorney in firm has material information
Why not irrebuttable presumption here? In any of these, can always represent with consent.
![Page 32: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Rule 1.9(b)
Shall not knowingly Represent person in same or SRM In which former firm represented client
Whose interests are materially adverse and Lawyer acquired material protected information
Unless former client gives informed written consent.
![Page 33: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Rule 1.10(b)
When lawyer leaves a firm, the firm Is not prohibited from representing client with
materially adverse interests unless The matter is the same or SRM and Any lawyer in the firm has material protected
information. May represent client with informed, written
consent
![Page 34: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
National Medical Enterprises v. Godbey
Tomko Baker & Botts (Tomko
screened)
Cronen NME Ps
(admin) (hosp – D)
![Page 35: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
National Medical Enterprises v. Godbey
Tomko represented Cronen – hospital administrator employed by NME.
Received confidential information from NME NOTE – receipt of information causes conflict.
Tomko cannot represent Ps who are suing NME. Is Baker & Botts disqualified?
Tomko has not disclosed information. Tomko has been screened. No reasonable probability confidential information will be
revealed.
![Page 36: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
NME Motion to Disqualy
Baker & Botts is disqualified. Irrebuttable presumption that information shared.
Virtually impossible for former client to prove whether information shared.
Client needs security. Guards integrity of legal practice.
Applies whether former client or duty under confidentiality agreement.
Abuse of discretion to deny disqualification.
![Page 37: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Cronen’s motion
Rules don’t determine disqualification, but provide guidelines, considerations
Cronen is not being sued. Little risk that he will be. BUT is some risk. And risk is serious.
He could be implicated in matters involved. Concern that former law firm involved against him. Action is adverse to him.
No discretion to not disqualify.
![Page 38: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Vaughan v. Walther Nancy Vaughan hired Goff to represent
daughter in child custody matter. Goff never met daughter. Matter dismissed 2 weeks later.
Vaughan hired Goff to represent her in seeking conservatorship of same child (and another) Hearing in March – representation discussed.
At final hearing in October, daughter filed motion to disqualify Goff.
Trial court granted motion. Supreme Court conditionally grants writ – abuse of
discretion.
![Page 39: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Vaughan v. Walther
Was there a conflict of interest? Shouldn’t attorney be disqualified?
Even if conflict of interest, right to object may be waived: Here, did nothing for 6 ½ months. Brought up at final hearing. Looks strategic – at least unfair to other party Unlikely any real harm.
Disqualification and ethical violation are different.
![Page 40: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
TLAPTexas Lawyer’s Assistance Program
Ann D. Foster, JD, MAC, Director
1-800-343-TLAP (8527)
![Page 41: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Grant v. 13th Court of Appeals Litigation RE chemical release
Attorney Brunkenhoefer represents >400 Ps Legal secretary Sandra Adame prime file coordinator –
interviews, appointments, etc. Adame left. Placed by temp agency in
Chavez firm (rep’d 2 Ds) Chavez relied on temp agency to
inquire about conflicts. When found out, screened her.
Ps filed motion to disqualify. Adame terminated.
Trial court granted motion to disqualify Supreme Court agrees.
![Page 42: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Non-legal personnel
Here, rebuttable presumption that information shared. (Why different treatment here???) BUT not rebutted simply by testimony that did not share
confidences. TEST: Is there genuine threat of disclosure?
Actual disclosure too hard to prove. Screening could reduce (eliminate?) threat
Here, no screening in initial period. Too late now.
Grant, unless extreme prejudice – Weigh risk, amount of participation, delay, prejudice
![Page 43: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
In Re Sofaer
Sofaer admonished for representing Government of Libya in violation of Rule 1.11(a).
Affirmed. He argued that
Representation not in the same matter. Involvement not personal and substantial.
Why is this a requirement? Why didn’t these arguments work?
What is a “matter”? Does he have to have information?
![Page 44: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Revolving Door Issue
Is firm disqualified? Different rule for public service attorneys Screening allowed under 1.11(b)
Allow mobility
Disqualification imputed unless Timely screened, no part of fee . . . Written notice promptly given
Ascertain compliance NOT consent requirement
Could always screen with consent
![Page 45: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Rule 1.11 – Government lawyers
Lawyer who has served in government Is subject to 1.9(c)(on using or revealing client info) Shall not represent client if participated personally and
substantially, unless government consents in writing When disqualified, no lawyer in firm shall
represent client unless Lawyer timely screened from participation and fee and Written notice is given to government agency.
If have confidential government information about a person, may not represent one with adverse interests if could be used to material disadvantage. Firm can, with screening.
![Page 46: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Revolving Door continued (a) and (b) NOT limited to “switching sides.” (c) Confidential information protected. (d) If currently public officer or employee
Subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9 Shall not participate in matter involved in while in private
practice or employment without written consent of agency Shall not negotiate for private employment w/ party or
lawyer in case in which personally and substantially involved, unless allowed by 1.12
(e) Matter includes Judicial or other proceeding, or any matter involving
specific party or parties and Any other matter governed by agency conflicts rules
![Page 47: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Rule 1.12 – Former judge (a) Attorney shall not represent client in matter
if participated personally and substantially as former judge, law clerk, arbitrator, etc., without informed, written consent. Disqualification is imputed to firm, UNLESS is screened and
notice given to parties and tribunal. (b) Shall not negotiate for employment
with party or lawyer in a matter in which participating personally and substantially as judge, arbitrator, etc. Law clerk may do so if notify judge.
Partisan arbitrator in multimember arbitration not prohibited from representing party.
![Page 48: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Committee on Professional Ethics v. Mershon
Mershon reprimanded for entering into a business transaction with a client.
Set up corporation to develop real estate owned by client – Client to own 40% of stock,
engineer 40%, Mershon 20%. Financing never obtained, client died. Mershon relinquished his interest – engineer did not. Mershon did not seek payment for his services.
Court still found rule violation.
![Page 49: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Violation in Mershon
Court found violation of rule Differing interests – present interest for future services –
debtor of corporation. Client expected Mershon to protect his interests Full disclosure of transaction, but not effect –
no advice about advisability as in 3P transaction, failure to protect his interests.
Attorney options – none satisfied Best and safest – Refuse to participate personally Recommend independent advice Worst – Meet high standards of disclosure
![Page 50: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Rule 1.8(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction
with a client or knowingly acquire an . . . interest adverse to a client unless: The transaction and terms are fair and reasonable to the
client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a way that can be reasonably understood by the client;
The client is advised in writing to seek independent legal advice and given reasonable opportunity to do so;
The client gives written, signed, informed consent to essential terms and lawyer’s role, including representation of client.
![Page 51: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Transactions with client
Don’t do it! If too good to pass up, why is it so good?
Are you taking advantage of client? Doesn’t client have other options?
If it’s not too good to pass up, why not just pass on it? IF go forward
Advise client as if doing deal with third party. B of P on lawyer if challenged – fiduciary Rule does not apply to standard commercial
transactions. Doctor, banker, car dealer
![Page 52: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Potential repercussions
Discipline Mershon
Breach of fiduciary duty Potential fee forfeiture or damages
Avoidance of transaction Lose benefits might have been entitled to in arms-length
transaction
Malpractice Harm caused by failing to adequately protect client’s
interests
![Page 53: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Literary/Media rights contracts under Rules
Rule 1.8(d) Prior to conclusion of the representation Lawyer shall not make or negotiate Agreement for literary or media rights to “Story” related to the representation
Texas Rule 1.08(c) Prior to conclusion of all aspects of the matter . . .
NOTE: NOT waivable by client Potential discipline
Client is more interested in conflict – ineffective assistance
![Page 54: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Beets v. Scott
Betty Lou Beets convicted of capital murder of her husband Jimmy Don (Husband # 5). “Staged” accidental drowning. Jimmy Don buried under planter in front yard (Husband # 4 – Doyle Wayne Barker –
was buried under patio in back yard.) Betty Lou hired attorney Andrews
First for insurance/pension matters, Then hired in murder case. After representation began, she transferred
media rights to her story to Andrews’ son.
![Page 55: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Literary/Media rights
Transfer of publication rights violates Code Disciplinary matter Andrews not disciplined (unclear why).
Reason for rule: Attorney may be more interested in creating good story
than in effective representation. “Trades on the misery of the victim and his family.” Does the rule help clients???
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim Based on conflict of interest – Rarely successful
![Page 56: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Standard for media rights conflict
Strickland standard Did performance fall below objective standard of
reasonableness? Is there a reasonable probability that result would have
been different w/o errors? Cuyler standard
Was there an active conflict of interest? Did it adversely affect the lawyer’s performance?
Which standard does the court use, and why? Waiver has survived constitutional challenge.
But court can deny client’s attempt to waive.
![Page 57: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Rule 5.7
Lawyer subject to Rules if provide law-related services if Not distinct from legal services to client By separate entity controlled/partially controlled by lawyer
IF fails to take reasonable measures to assure client knows the services are not legal services and the usual protections do not exist.
Lawyers are always subject to applicable rules in providing legal services, and must make sure client is protected.
Q: What is the conflicts issue?
![Page 58: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Law related services
Law related services – examples: Title insurance, financial planning, real estate Accounting, trust services, tax preparation Economic analysis, social work, lobbying, expert
advice Texas does not have this rule. Related to multi-disciplinary practice –
controversial Fee splitting, UPL, independent judgment, conflicts,
advertising, confidentiality and privilege
![Page 59: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Competing with clients
Fiduciary obligations – Cannot use client information for personal profit
Rule 1.8(b) – Shall not Use info related to the representation To the disadvantage of the client unless Informed consent or Permitted or required by rules.
Texas Rule 1.05(b)(4) – Shall not Use privileged info for advantage of lawyer or 3P, Unless client consents after consultation.
![Page 60: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Passante v. McWilliam
Attorney Passante represented Upper Deck Client needed $100,000 Attorney arranged loan from brother of law partner Grateful client voted to give him 3% interest in company
Attorney sued for breach of K to give him interest Jury awarded P $33 million – value
of stock JNOV for D – unenforceable.
Appeal. Affirmed.
![Page 61: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Agreement for stock If gratuitous – unenforceable
If really all their idea, after the fact, no bargain. If bargained-for – violates rules If part of fee agreement, violates rules Rule 1.8(a)
Not good deal for client – no full disclosure No advice/opportunity for independent representation No informed consent
Inherent conflict – existence of interest would cause problems, not good deal for company
If had delivered, would it violate 1.8(c)? Would it be voidable?
![Page 62: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Rule 1.8(c) A lawyer shall not
Solicit any substantial gift from a client (including a testamentary gift) or
Prepare an instrument of gift (substantial) to lawyer or related person
UNLESS the lawyer or recipient is related to the client. Related person includes
spouse, Child, grandchild, Parent, grandparent or Other relative or person with close, familial relationship.
***NOTE: No provision for consent.Should you sometimes avoid this even for family members?
![Page 63: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
In re Blackwelder
Blackwelder was hired to appeal a default judgment against the Gosnells. He missed the filing deadline. He entered into a settlement
agreement with his clients: They agreed
Not to sue him for malpractice; Not to file a grievance against him.
He agreed To reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses for appeal; To file a joint bankruptcy petition for them.
![Page 64: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Rule 1.8(h)
A lawyer shall not Make an agreement
Prospectively limiting liability for malpractice to client Unless client is independently represented, or
Settle a claim or potential claim for such liability With unrepresented client or former client unless Advised in writing to seek independent counsel and Given reasonable opportunity to seek same.
![Page 65: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
In re Rinella
Disciplinary complaint against Rinella – Professional misconduct Sexual relations with clients and
testifying falsely before commission.
3 year suspension – Supreme Court approves.
R says that not violation of rule – No DR RE sexual relations with clients – Need notice of rules to be disciplined
Court disagrees – implicit in rules – fair notice.
![Page 66: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Analysis Violation even if did not directly affect
representation, Still risk to clients. But did affect representation here.
Took advantage of clients and relationship. Overreaching Used confidential information to gain advantage Failure to withdraw Not undivided loyalty
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Lied in disciplinary proceeding.
Is appropriate inquiry – don’t get to lie about sex.
![Page 67: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Rule 1.8(j) Lawyer shall not
Have sexual relations with a client Unless consensual relationship already existed.
New rule – Controversial – not in all jurisdictions Not in Texas Family law
NO provision for waiver Why limitation RE ongoing relationships? Who is the client? Is the rule necessary?
Is it a good idea? What other remedies exist?
![Page 68: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Smolen Attorney Smolen represented Miles
in Workers’ Compensation case. Loaned Miles $1200
“for travel expenses.” $ actually for living expenses. Miles’ home destroyed by fire.
Loan was interest free – To repay $100/week from disability benefits. Repaid $200 – rest to be paid after case over.
Miles hired new attorney – Smolen ended rep. Bar discovered arrangement.
Smolen had done this before. Consulted “experts” who told him it was not a violation.
![Page 69: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Rule 1.8(e)
A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with litigation, except that: May advance court costs and litigation expenses,
w/ repayment contingent on outcome, and May pay court costs and litigation expenses for
indigent client. No provision for advancing living expenses. No court has struck down for
unconstitutionality
![Page 70: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Intent and constitutionality
Intent – Concern with creating “bidding wars” for clients –
Champerty and maintenance Clients selecting lawyer based on improper factors, Conflicts of interest – independent judgment.
Smolen says doesn’t apply to him, since he didn’t pay to get client. Representation still ongoing – settlement pending Gets benefit of reputation as one who pays
expenses.
![Page 71: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Constitutionality
Rational basis test – Reason to treat litigation expenses and court cost differently from living expenses– Related to litigation Within lawyer’s expertise Duty to advise client RE litigation expenses and court
costs, not other expenses Lawyer generally pays litigation expenses and court costs
directly – living expenses go to client – no guarantee how used.
![Page 72: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Texas Rule 1.08(d)
A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with litigation or administrative proceedings except May advance
Court costs and litigation expenses AND Reasonably necessary medical and living expenses, With repayment contingent on outcome and
May pay court costs and expenses of litigation for indigent client.
*** What is the rationale for the difference?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each rule?
![Page 73: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Rule 1.8(f)
Lawyer shall not accept compensation from 3P for representing client, unless: Client gives informed consent No interference with independent professional judgment or
lawyer-client relationship Confidential information is protected.
When would a 3P pay for client’s representation? Is this a conflict?Is there a duty to the 3P? Recall Rule 5.4(c) – A lawyer shall not permit one
who . . . recommends, . . . pays for legal services for another to direct the lawyer’s professional judgment.
![Page 74: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Rule 1.8(i) and (k)
1.8(i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the C/A or subject matter of the litigation, except May acquire a lien authorized by law May enter K for reasonable contingent fee in civil
case. 1.8(k) All 1.8 rules are imputed to all lawyers
currently in firm, except Rule 1.8(j) (sexual relations with client).
![Page 75: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
In re Swihart
Swihart retained to represent unwed mother in adoption matter. Mother does not want
To know identity of adoptive parents Adoption to be “local.”
Swiharts proceed to adopt child Mother has adoption withdrawn.
Swihart is suspended from practice. What rule(s) has he violated?
![Page 76: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Rule 6.4 Law Reform Activities
Lawyer may serve as director, officer or member of law reform organization even though reform may affect interests of client.
When know client may materially benefit, shall disclose, but need not ID client. Protects organization from impact of conflicts of
attorney – “stealth” activity. Attorney is still subject to general conflicts rules,
so cannot serve (or cannot represent client) if results in 1.7 conflict.
![Page 77: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Rule 6.5 If provide short-term limited legal services to a client
Under program sponsored by nonprofit organization or court
Without expectation of continuing representation (by lawyer or client)
Subject to conflicts rules only if know a conflict is involved and
Subject to imputation only if know associated with disqualified lawyer. Otherwise, 1.10 inapplicable.
If take on continuing representation, conflicts rules apply.
![Page 78: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
People v. Conner
Conner charged w/ armed robbery and other crimes. Stabbed and shot deputy. Shot at D.A. Braughton. Escaped. Charged w/ additional crimes.
Trial Court recused entire D.A. office (25 attorneys)
D.A. appealed. Said no conflict of interest.
Affirmed.
![Page 79: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Disqualification
Braughton personally involved. Close relationship with all in office. Small office. All tainted. Issue of fairness -- disqualification Uphold Trial Court decision.
NOTE: What is prosecutor’s “special role” in the justice system?
![Page 80: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Insurance “Triangle”
Attorney$ representation
insurance
Insurance Co. Insured $, obligations
Is there a conflict of interest?
If so, what kind?
![Page 81: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Employers Casualty v. Tilley
Attorney$
representation
insurance
Employers Casualty Tilley $, obligations
Attorney represented Tilley.
During representation, developed information to defeat coverage on behalf of Employers.
![Page 82: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Employers Casualty
Employers seeks declaratory judgment that no coverage due to late notice of claim. Tilley claims Employers waived right to claim late
notice. Now estopped from denying coverage.
Both seek SJ. Tilley wins at trial court on estoppel issue. Court of appeals affirms.
Supreme Court affirms. Basis?
![Page 83: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Employers Casualty and Representation of Insureds
Who is attorney’s client? What does majority say? Concurring opinion?
What are the attorney’s obligations? What is the conflict?
Can the insurance company hire in-house counsel or “captive” law firms?
Why are there obligations to the insurance company? Are “guidelines” enforceable?
Was the insurance company well served??
![Page 84: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Other insurance issues
What is a “Reservation of Rights” letter? What is a non-waiver agreement? How do courts interpret them?
When does an insurance company have a duty to provide a defense? Does it have a duty to provide a defense for claims for
which there is no coverage?
Is there a conflict of interest when some claims are covered and some are not?
What is the Stowers doctrine?
![Page 85: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Other Third Party Conflicts
No specific rule about family member representing other side in case – mentioned in comment
Rule 6.3 – May be member, director, etc., in legal services organization Even if interests adverse to client. Shall not knowingly participate in decision or act of
organization if Would violate Rule 1.7 Could have material adverse effect on representing client of
organization with interests adverse to lawyer’s client.
![Page 86: Conflicts of Interest Concurrent and Successive Client, Personal, and Third Party](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070407/56649e355503460f94b24d55/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Rule 2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Persons
May provide evaluation of Matter affecting a client For use of non-client If reasonably believe compatible with relationship with
client.
If know (or reasonably should know) that Evaluation likely to be materially adverse to client – Shall not provide without informed consent of client.
Except as authorized, Rule 1.6 protects information.