A Seattle firm with a nationwide reputation for handling food-borne illness cases will not be representing a child who allegedly became sick from E. coli after eating a salad at a Colorado restaurant.
That’s because the Colorado Supreme Court decided yesterday that defense counsel’s prior consultation with the firm created a conflict that could not be ignored.
A law firm could not avoid disqualification by screening a newly hired associate from a client matter in which she had a conflict of interest, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
The specter of disqualification can unexpectedly raise its ugly head whenever a lawyer switches firms.
One law firm just learned that it could not avoid disqualification in a long-running real property case – no matter what it did to screen a new hire from the litigation.
Most lawyers would choose to walk barefoot over red-hot coals before taking a side in their parents’ divorce case. But one Nevada lawyer has taken the dubious step of actually representing his father against his mother.
And as incredible as it may seem, the lawyer somehow managed to beat back his mother’s attempt to get him disqualified from the case.
A Florida court has decided that lawyers were not required to withdraw from a case simply because opposing counsel inadvertently e-mailed them a confidential document.
A lawyer representing a party in a business dispute was not subject to disqualification based on the fact that he reviewed privileged materials that he received unsolicited from an anonymous source, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
A law firm wasn’t subject to automatic disqualification in a land development lawsuit based on a past “open-ended” retainer agreement with an opposing party, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing judgment.
The law firm for a medical malpractice plaintiff must be disqualified because of its failure to take reasonable steps to shield the access of a legal assistant who once worked for opposing counsel, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
An insurance defendant’s law firm wasn’t necessarily subject to disqualification based on the fact that one of its lawyers had in the past received confidential information from the plaintiffs, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a disqualification order.