Crowell DQ Based on Short-Tenured E-Discovery Lawyer Reversed by Appellate Court
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Crowell & Moring shouldn't suffer "vicarious disqualification" because an attorney the firm hired, who has subsequently left, once did work for its litigation opponent.
July 25, 2018 at 06:30 PM
1 minute read
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM. Crowell & Moring Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman a decision issued in June and certified for publication Tuesday
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.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
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