Anthony E. Davis and Janis M. Meyer Avoiding Conflicts with Prospective Clients
When approached with a new potential representation, a lawyer needs to do a conflicts check. Once that clears, what is stopping them from jumping in and getting as much information as possible to demonstrate to the potential client that they are the right choice? In reality, they should take precautions to ensure that not only the lawyer but the entire firm are not disqualified.
March 27, 2024 at 10:30 AM
8 minute read
It is the rare lawyer who is not delighted to be approached about a new potential representation. All that developing a specialty and gaining experience has paid off! The lawyer of course needs to do a conflicts check, but, once that is cleared, what is to stop the lawyer from jumping right in and getting as much information as possible to demonstrate to the potential client that the lawyer is the right person for the engagement? In reality, the lawyer should slow down and take precautions to ensure that not only the lawyer but the lawyer's entire firm are not disqualified.
NY Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18 (Duties to Prospective Clients) (RPC 1.18) lays out the ground rules for avoiding disqualification. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility (the Committee) recently addressed the issue in Formal Opinion 510 ("Avoiding the Imputation of a Conflict of Interest When a Law Firm is Adverse to One of its Lawyer's Prospective Clients" (ABA Op 510, or the Opinion). Although the Opinion reviews the issue through the lens of ABA Model Rule 1.18 (Duties to Prospective Client) (Model Rule 1.18), the sections of the Model Rule discussed in ABA Op. 510 are similar, and in part, identical to, those in RPC 1.18.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute read
Big Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Are Dominated by Small Cap Listings
The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
7 minute read
A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
13 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
- 2Cornell Tech Expands Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Masters of Law Program to Part Time Format
- 3Divided Eighth Circuit Sides With GE's Timely Removal of Indemnification Action to Federal Court
- 4Former U.S. Dept. of Education Attorney Suspended for Failure to Complete CLE Credits
- 5ArentFox Schiff Adds Global Complex Litigation Partner in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
