Home/Table of Contents

Back to Government Entities

STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY

The State of Minnesota,

vs.

Philip Morris Inc.

No. C1-94-8565
Nov. 29, 1994

MEMORANDUM

This lawsuit was commenced by the Attorney General, on behalf of the State of
Minnesota, based on statutory claims of Unlawful Trade Practices,(Minn. Stat. §§ 8.01, 8.31, 325D.09-15), Deceptive Trade Practices, (§ 325D.43-45), Minnesota Antitrust Law, (§ 325D), False Statement in Advertising Act (§ 325F.67), and Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (§ 325F.69), and common law claims for unjust enrichment, restitution, and breach of undertaking of a special duty.

.  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
III. State's Motion to Disqualify

Plaintiff State of Minnesota moves to disqualify the law firms of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, Dorsey & Whitney, Leonard, Street & Deinhard, Faegre & Benson, and Lindquist & Vennum based on their concurrent representation of the State and defendants. Rule 1.7(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct provides:

"A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation."

The five defendants respond that the State of Minnesota is not a current or former client. The defendants argue that their representation of a variety of state agencies does not mean that the State of Minnesota is their client. Therefore, Rule 1.7(a) does not apply. The court agrees with this general proposition, however, the question remains as to whether the represented agency would be adversely affected by the concurrent representation.

Of the five defense firms involved, only Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett's relationship with the Department of Employee Relations ("DOER") is of concern to the court based on their health care contract negotiations. However, this firm has represented to the court that it no longer provides services to DOER nor will it do so in the future. As for the remaining four firms, the court finds that the representation of their respective state agencies does not adversely affect plaintiff. The motion to disqualify the law firms of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, Dorsey & Whitney, Leonard, Street & Deinhard, Faegre & Benson, and Lindquist & Vennum is denied.

K.J.F.

Home/Table of Contents

Back to Government Entities