Conflicts 101: Identifying and Handling Conflicts
By combining a knowledge of the legal requirements with practical considerations, attorneys can help ensure that they don't get into hot water over conflicts issues.
February 21, 2018 at 02:17 PM
6 minute read
Most attorneys are aware that conflicts are not something to take lightly. After all, cautionary tales abound in the media, as many high-profile legal malpractice cases of late seem to be rooted in unresolved conflicts issues. However, conflicts are not as scary as they seem. By understanding the types of conflicts and, where possible, how to cure conflicts, attorneys can minimize their risks and ensure that they do not unnecessarily lose work every time there is a suggestion of a conflict.
The place to start in analyzing a conflicts issue is to identify the type of conflict. Potential conflicts generally come in two forms: simultaneous representations and successive representations.
|Simultaneous Representation Conflicts
First, perhaps the most obvious type of conflict is a simultaneous or concurrent representation conflict, which arises out of the representation of two clients at the same time. Such conflicts can occur when representing more than one client in a matter, or simply when a firm obtains a new client whose interests are adverse or are potentially adverse to another current client.
The rules regarding simultaneous representations are strict. California courts hold that a simultaneous adversarial representation results in per se or “automatic” disqualification for the attorney “in all but a few instances.” M'Guinness v. Johnson, 243 Cal. App. 4th 602, 608, 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662, 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 275, 283, 885 P.2d 950 (1994)). The reason for such a strict rule is because a concurrent representation of two clients with apparently opposing interests could call into question an attorney's loyalty to the client.
However, before declining a representation due to a simultaneous representation conflict, attorneys can review whether there is actually a conflict. This is of course a fact-intensive analysis and, in some cases, can be a very close call. However, where there is a potential simultaneous representation conflict, then attorneys will typically proceed with caution given the potential for automatic disqualification.
|Successive Representation Conflicts
The second type of conflict occurs when there is a conflict between the representation of a former client and the representation of a current or prospective client. This type of conflict is often referred to as a “successive representation” conflict. In order to determine whether there is a potential conflict, California courts analyze whether there is a “substantial relationship” between the subjects of the antecedent and current representations. Flatt, 9 Cal. 4th 275, 283, 885 P.2d 950 (1994).
Successive representations generally do not have the same “automatic disqualification” rule in part because, unlike simultaneous representation conflicts, the primary concern is not the duty of loyalty because the relationship with one of the clients has already ended. Instead, however, there may be concerns regarding maintaining client confidentiality, as the attorney could use confidential information obtained in the prior representation to the detriment of the former client in the new representation.
Thus, when an attorney is asked to take on work that is adverse to the interests of a former client, the relevant inquiry is usually whether the information obtained during the representation of the former client can be used in the representation of the new client. If the attorney did not and could not have learned any confidences and secrets that could be used to the former client's detriment, then conflicts typically will not preclude the new representation.
|Use Conflicts Systems Effectively
For many attorneys, the first indication of a potential conflict comes from their law firm's automated conflict check system. Computers have proven to be a great resource for checking conflicts, but they are only as accurate as the information inputted into the system. Thus, where attorneys fail to take the time to identify all potentially adverse parties in a matter, the conflicts system will be less than perfect.
In addition, a conflicts system is of little help if it is not used with regularity. Attorneys typically remember to run conflicts when a new matter comes in, but conflicts considerations might arise at other times during a representation. This can include, for example, when a new party becomes involved as a plaintiff, defendant, lender, buyer, or seller.
|Addressing Conflicts With Clients
Just because a conflict comes up in the system does not mean that the representation will necessarily be precluded. There are situations in which the rules will permit a representation even where a potential conflict exists provided that the attorney makes appropriate disclosures and obtains the client's consent. However, some conflicts of interest are clearly not waivable, such as where a law firm attempts to represent both a plaintiff and a defendant in the same lawsuit.
Often, the most difficult decision for an attorney is how to handle client relationships when there is a potential conflict. Some clients may not react kindly to being approached with a request for a conflict waiver by their attorney. However, in today's world, most clients recognize that conflicts will occur and a conflict's existence does not signal a lack of dedication or loyalty from the attorney.
However, some client relationships can suffer even where the attorney determines that there is no legal conflict and thus no need to obtain a conflict waiver. This can occur, for example, where an attorney represents one of the client's main competitors, creating a potential business conflict (even if not a legal conflict). For that reason, attorneys can take a commonsense approach to conflicts and consider whether it may be appropriate to notify other clients of the new representation (subject to confidentiality obligations) and smooth over any concerns even in the absence of an actual conflict.
By combining a knowledge of the legal requirements with practical considerations, attorneys can help ensure that they don't get into hot water over conflicts issues.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons US and serves on the firm's US Board of Directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims, is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team, and is co-author of “California Legal Malpractice Law” (2014). Alanna Clair is a partner at Dentons US and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.” This article was prepared with assistance from Craig Giometti, an associate at Dentons US.
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
© 2024 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 AllFaegre Drinker Adds Three Former Federal Prosecutors From Greenberg Traurig
4 minute readAnapol Weiss Acquires Boutique Led by Star Litigator Alexandra Walsh
5 minute readPierson Ferdinand Lures Veteran M&A Specialist From Sheppard Mullin in Silicon Valley
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Waterbury Jury Awards $2 Million Verdict Against Eversource
- 2Walter Taggart, Villanova Law Professor, Dies at 81
- 3$2.7M Verdict for Whistleblower Exposes Employer to $300M Claim
- 4Phila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
- 5Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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