Important Note on Web Security

Since April 2023, this Web site is "secure." This means we have obtained "SSL Certificates" for www.freivogel.com and www.freivogelonconflicts.com. If IT personnel in your organization have either cautioned you about use of this site, or restricted your access to it, you should call this change in status to their attention.

Former Client (posted November 19, 2024) Chian v. Meng, No. HHD-X03-CV-22-6165940-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. Oct. 30, 2024). Plaintiff had donated $1.9 million to a Chinese-oriented religious organization for purchase of real estate. In this case Plaintiff is claiming Defendant wrongfully obtained ownership of the property. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Defendant's lawyer ("Lawyer") in this case. In this opinion the trial court granted the motion. Lawyer had handled the original property purchase and was involved in the conveyance to Defendant. In a lengthy analysis of Connecticut cases the court concluded it was "patently clear" the earlier conveyances and this case are substantially related.

Waiver; Delay (posted November 19, 2024) Hill v. SHR Luxury Condo. Assoc., Inc. No. 09-22-00339-CV (Tex. App. 9th Dist. Nov. 14, 2024). Civil case. Trial Court denied a motion to disqualify because the movant waited eleven months, and until one month before trial, to make the motion. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed.

Current Client (posted November 12, 2024) Gil-White v. Alterna Capital Partners, LLC, No. 655864/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Oct. 25, 2024). Plaintiffs, represented by Law Firm, have sued five defendants for "conspiracy to seize" Plaintiffs' oil rigs. Defendants include AMA Capital and Paul Leand. Earlier, in 2023, Plaintiffs, represented by Law Firm, filed, in Florida, a nearly "identical" case against all Defendants (but, not Leand). In the Florida case, Defendants moved to disqualify Law Firm, because Law Firm was representing AMA in an unrelated arbitration. The Florida court granted the motion. This opinion deals with Defendants' motion to disqualify Law Firm in this case. This motion raised issues of jurisdiction and preclusion. We are skipping those. In this opinion the court found New York Rule 1.7 (current client) applied. Law Firm attempted to avoid that finding by noting it had previously dismissed AMA in the Florida case, and terminated its relationship with AMA. This court said "nothing doing" because it looked to the relationship when Law Firm first sued AMA in Florida. The court found a conflict regarding Leand because Leand was head of AMA, and said "it follows" disqualification must extend to all Defendants.

Expert Witness (posted November 12, 2024) Kneeshaw v. Super. Ct., No. G064831 (Cal. App. Unpub. 4th Dist. Nov. 7, 2024). In this unpublished opinion the appellate court reversed a trial court's exclusion of Plaintiff's expert. The trial court had noted the expert was a "distant" relative of Plaintiff and Plaintiff is paying the expert. The appellate court said, in effect, all that was grist for cross-examination.\

[Note: Items that do not fit under the conflicts categories below, but which we believe will be of interest to this audience will appear here at This and That.

Nothing current.

[Note: These, too, will appear at the This and That pages.]

(posted October 23, 2024) M.D. v. S.D., No. 126,599 (Kan. App. Oct. 18, 2024). We recently wrote of a Canadian case in which the appellate court upheld a trial court's disqualification of a father representing his son, because the father could not provide objectivity in the representation, Bergeron v. Assemblee parlementaire des étudiants du Quebec Inc., 2024 QCCA 1264 (CanLII) (Ct. App. Que. Sept. 27, 2024). That was a unique holding in Canada. We pointed out that we had not seen such a holding in the U.S. Well, we've come close with this one, "a contentious divorce custody dispute." Father and Mother are fighting over custody of four children in, some would day "the most contentious case in Johnson County family court." Father's father ("Grandfather") attempted to represent Father in this case. The trial court disqualified Grandfather. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed. Both courts relied primarily on Rule 3.7, because Grandfather had testified early on in this case and is likely to do so again. Neither court mentioned material limitation concepts under Rule 1.7, but it would not have been much of a reach to do so.

APPEALABILITY (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

ARBITRATION OF MALPRACTICE CLAIMS (To read the full article, click here.

Nothing current.

BANKRUPTCY (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

BANKS/TRUST DEPARTMENTS (To read full article, click here.)

CHANGING FIRMS - SCREENING (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

CLASS ACTIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

CO-COUNSEL/COMMON INTEREST (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS (To read full article, click .)

Nothing current.

CORPORATIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

CORPORATE FAMILIES (To read full article, click here.) 

(posted October 24, 2023) Harbour Antibodies BV v. Teneobio, Inc., 2024 WL 4554855 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2024). Law Firm represents Harbour against Teneobio ("T Inc") in this patent-related case. Shortly before Law Firm filed this case, T Inc was acquired by Amgen. Amgen is a client of Law Firm. T Inc moved to disqualify Law Firm in this case. The court referred the matter to a Special Master ("SM"). The SM filed a report recommending the motion to disqualify be denied. In this opinion the court adopted the report and denied the motion. The court agreed with the SM's view a Rule 1.7(a) conflict exists, but also agreed with SM justice would best be served by allowing Law Firm to continue. This could have gone either way and is of doubtful precedential value. So, we see no gain in an extended discussion of the arguments. If you want tips on how to defeat such a motion in the face of a conflict, take a look at the opinion. Warning; The court discusses a "thrust upon" theory in the context of this case. In our 30 years of work in this area, "thrust upon" has been a feature in some "hot potato" cases, but never as here.

CURRENT CLIENT (To read full article, click here.)

(posted November 12, 2024) Gil-White v. Alterna Capital Partners, LLC, No. 655864/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Oct. 25, 2024). Plaintiffs, represented by Law Firm, have sued five defendants for "conspiracy to seize" Plaintiffs' oil rigs. Defendants include AMA Capital and Paul Leand. Earlier, in 2023, Plaintiffs, represented by Law Firm, filed, in Florida, a nearly "identical" case against all Defendants (but, not Leand). In the Florida case, Defendants moved to disqualify Law Firm, because Law Firm was representing AMA in an unrelated arbitration. The Florida court granted the motion. This opinion deals with Defendants' motion to disqualify Law Firm in this case. This motion raised issues of jurisdiction and preclusion. We are skipping those. In this opinion the court found New York Rule 1.7 (current client) applied. Law Firm attempted to avoid that finding by noting it had previously dismissed AMA in the Florida case, and terminated its relationship with AMA. This court said "nothing doing" because it looked to the relationship when Law Firm first sued AMA in Florida. The court found a conflict regarding Leand because Leand was head of AMA, and said "it follows" disqualification must extend to all Defendants.

(posted October 29, 2024) Empire Trust, LLC v. Cellura, 2024 WL 4573989 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024). Douglas Dollinger represents Plaintiff, Empire Trust in this civil fraud case against Defendant, Joseph Cellura. Dollinger currently represents Cellura in a related fraud case. Defendants moved to disqualify Dollinger in this case. In this opinion the court granted the motion to disqualify. We have, over time, begun not writing about outcomes that are obvious and of no precedential value. This is such a case. Still, we cannot resist. The court described Dollinger's arguments against disqualification as "scattershot distractions." At one point Dollinger argued that his own client did not have the attorney-client privilege. The judge's reaction was priceless: "Think about that for a moment."

(posted October 24, 2023) Harbour Antibodies BV v. Teneobio, Inc., 2024 WL 4554855 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2024). To read about the case, go to "Corporate Families," above.

DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

ENJOINING CONFLICTS (AND OTHER NON-TRADITIONAL REMEDIES) (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

EXPERT WITNESSES (To read full article, click here.)

(posted November 12, 2024) Kneeshaw v. Super. Ct., No. G064831 (Cal. App. Unpub. 4th Dist. Nov. 7, 2024). In this unpublished opinion the appellate court reversed a trial court's exclusion of Plaintiff's expert. The trial court had noted the expert was a "distant" relative of Plaintiff and Plaintiff is paying the expert. The appellate court said, in effect, all that was grist for cross-examination.

(posted October 23, 2024) Via Appia, LLC v. OP Devel., Inc., No. F087160 (Cal. App. Unpub. 5th Dist. Oct. 21, 2024). Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' law firm ("P Firm") because P Firm had consulted with, and tendered as Plaintiffs' expert, an individual, with whom Defendants' lawyers had earlier consulted about this case. The trial court disqualified both the consultant and P Firm. In this unpublished opinion the appellate court affirmed. The court relied heavily upon a leading case, Shadow Traffic Network v. Super. Ct., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1067 (1994). The analysis is highly fact-specific, and limited to California appellate cases, but is a good review of how far a lawyer may go in messing with the other side's expert.

(posted October 23, 2024) Vogel v. Vogel, 2024 SKKB 182 (K.B. Sask. Oct. 10, 2024). This is a marital case in which the monetary values of several businesses and trusts are at issue. For pre-trial and settlement purposes, H and W agreed to retain Expert to provide valuation opinions on these entities, which Expert did. This opinion deals with whether W may request that same expert to prepare a report for W to use at trial. Over H's objections, the court held W could request, and Expert could prepare, such a report. The court said it was not holding the report would be admissible at trial or that Expert could testify. Those issues would await trial.

FORMER CLIENT (To read full article, click here.)

(posted November 19, 2024) Chian v. Meng, No. HHD-X03-CV-22-6165940-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. Oct. 30, 2024). Plaintiff had donated $1.9 million to a Chinese-oriented religious organization for purchase of real estate. In this case Plaintiff is claiming Defendant wrongfully obtained ownership of the property. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Defendant's lawyer ("Lawyer") in this case. In this opinion the trial court granted the motion. Lawyer had handled the original property purchase and was involved in the conveyance to Defendant. In a lengthy analysis of Connecticut cases the court concluded it was "patently clear" the earlier conveyances and this case are substantially related.

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES - SUING ONE PART/REPRESENTING ANOTHER PART (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

INITIAL INTERVIEW - HEARING TOO MUCH (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

INSURANCE DEFENSE (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

INVESTING IN CLIENTS/STOCK FOR FEES (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

JOINT/MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION (To read full article, click here.)

(posted November 8, 2024) Valdez v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc. No. 24-CV-05376(HG) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2024). Driver and Passenger were injured when their auto collided with a truck. Driver and Passenger have sued the owner of the truck and its driver. The defendants have moved to disqualify Law Firm, which is representing both Driver and Passenger. Law Firm responded citing conflict waivers signed by Driver and Passenger and instructions from Passenger not to make claims against Driver. In this opinion the court, saying Law Firm's conflict was "unwaivable," granted the motion to disqualify Law Firm from representing "either" Driver or Passenger. The opinion contains an extensive discussion of New York authorities on driver/passenger situations.

LAWYER AS EXPERT WITNESS OR CONSULTANT (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

MALPRACTICE LIABILITY/FEE FORFEITURES (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

OF COUNSEL (To read full article, click here.)

OPPOSING LAWYERS NEGOTIATING A LAW PRACTICE MERGER (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

STANDING (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

TRADE (AND OTHER) ASSOCIATIONS (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

Nothing current.

WAIVERS/CONSENTS (To read full article, click here.)

(posted November 19, 2024) Hill v. SHR Luxury Condo. Assoc., Inc. No. 09-22-00339-CV (Tex. App. 9th Dist. Nov. 14, 2024). Civil case. Trial Court denied a motion to disqualify because the movant waited eleven months, and until one month before trial, to make the motion. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed.

WITNESS - ADVERSE - CURRENT/FORMER CLIENT (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.

ZERO SUM GAMES (To read full article, click here.)

Nothing current.