In Case Pitting Law Firms Against Clients Over Conflicts, California High Court Sides (Mostly) With Clients
The California Supreme Court on Thursday found that the burden is on law firms to identify and disclose ongoing conflicts to potential clients. "Simply put, withholding available information about a known, existing conflict is not consistent with informed consent," Justice Leondra Kruger wrote.
August 30, 2018 at 05:46 PM
5 minute read
In a highly anticipated decision concerning attorney-client conflicts, the California Supreme Court on Thursday found that the burden is on law firms to identify and disclose ongoing conflicts to potential clients.
The underlying case, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. J-M Manufacturing Company Inc., pits the parties—an Am Law 100 law firm and the world's largest plastic pipe-maker—against each other in a fight over millions of dollars in legal fees. But beyond the dollars at stake, the case has become something of a proxy fight between corporate clients who demand firm loyalty and large law firms which look broadly to generate more business.
In Thursday's decision, the court found that Sheppard Mullin failed to inform J-M that it had an ongoing relationship with a municipality that was party to a whistleblower the firm was hired to handle.
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
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