ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Legal Ethics Forum

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Ethics

: Legal Ethics Forum

Outside the Box v. Travel Caddy

ADVERTISEMENTS

In this Federal Circuit decision (2/1/2010):

A lawyer for King & Spaulding had been an expert witness for plaintiff in the trial court in connection with an application for counsel fees form defendant. Counsel fees were denied.

 On appeal of that issue, K&S lawyers first appeared to represent the defendant and plaintiff moved to disqualify the firm because of the trial court affidavit of a K&S lawyer as its expert.

The parties argued over whether the expert had an attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff. The court thought not. I agree.

However, it also concluded that the firm (as defendant's counsel) would now be in a position of having to challenge the credibility of its own lawyer's expert opinion, warranting disqualification absent waiver by defendant which was not shown.

Three interesting things here: First, plaintiff moved to disqualify the firm but the court did not find any violation of a duty to it, only to the defendant. The defendant resisted the disqualification. Why would the court opt to "protect" the defendant on plaintiff's motion?

Second, why didn't the court cite the advocate witness rule, which will sometimes impute a an advocate/witness conflict throughout a firm? Perhaps the answer is that imputation of an advocate/witness conflict depends on Rule 1.7 which the court did cite. 

But it's still curious that the plaintiff was able to win disqualification because of the firm's conflict with the defendant, who did not protest. Can the defendant now file a waiver? Apparently not because the court ordered the defendant to return with new counsel.

Third, and most curious, once the motion to disqualify was filed, why didn't the defendant (or K&S) anticipate the court's eventual line of reasoning and submit an informed consent from the defendant?  While the court's basis may not have been part of the plaintiff's motion, it was foreseeable that the court might pursue this line (whether it should have done so is another matter). The issue could have been addressed and a waiver offered. 

Full post as published by Legal Ethics Forum on March 27, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0122 secs (new cache)