Conflict: former clients 1.9

Question 1

1.9(a) former client four steps

Answer 1

1. Does the potential conflict come from another current client (1.7) or a former client (1.9)
   Rst section 14
2. If a former client, is the current client’s matter the same or sub related to the former client’s matter?
   Ie using the three steps above
3. Are the current client’s interests materially adverse to the former client’s interest
4. If yes to all of the above, you need informed consent, confirmed in wiring, from the former client

Question 2

1.9(a)

Answer 2

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the SAME OR A SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED MATTER in which that person’s interests are MATTERIALLY ADVERSE to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Question 3

1.9(a) “substantially related”
See comment three

Answer 3

Involves the same transaction or legal dispute OR theres a RISK that confidential info obtained in prior rep would help the CURRENT CLIENT

It’s not dependent on the lawyer actually learning the info

Question 4

three steps to see if matter is substantially related as required by 1.9(a) to be triggered

Answer 4

1. What was the scope of the former scope
2. What is the scope of the current rep
3. Is the former rep LIKELY to involve disclosure of 1.6 info that is relevant to the current rep?

Question 5

1.9s flow

Question 6

WESTINGHOUSE V. GULF OIL CORP - same/sub related

Gulf oil is one of the named defendants
UNC is being reped by Bigbee, which had previously performed legal work on behalf of Gulf

Gulf retained the Bigbee law firm to represent it on legal matters relating to gulf’s uranium operations
Thorough its five year of rep, the firm performed numerous services

ISSUE
Whether there is a sufficient relationship between matters presented nu the pending litigation and matters which the lawyers in question worked on in behalf of the party now seeking disqualification and whether the party seeking disqualification has given legally sufficient consent to the dual representation

Answer 6

There was clearly a substantial relationship between the representation

1. What was the scope of the prior rep: likely obtained info about quantity and quality of uranium
2. Scope of current rep – price fixing
3. The first rep is legally relevant to the second rep – ie restricting the output of uranium

Question 7

1.7 current client vs 1.9(a) former client

Answer 7

1.7 is much more strict, more likely to need informed consent or withdraw
1.7 – conflict if current clients are DIRECTLY ADVERSE, even if matters are UNRELATED
1.9 – no conflict if merely adverse to former client, the clients ALSO NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED

Question 8

Nustar

Timeline
2007: Stoller reps Zylstras in many matters. NuStar buy Zylstras’ land, includes manure easements. Stoller consults on manure easements.

May 2014: Stoller begins repping Nustar in connection with 2007 Zylstra deal- Zylstra withholding executed deed to get leverage. Starts contacting Zylstras on behalf of Nustar.

May 2014: Stoller reps Zylstras in small claims matter (unrelated).

May, 13: 2014: Stoller sends demand notice and ends A/C relationship with Zylstras.

June 5, 2014: Stoller contacts Zylstras about appealing small claims matter.

june 9 2014: stoller/nustar sue zylstras about the deed and zylstras move to disqualify stoller

Is there a rule 1.9 conflict?

Answer 8

No, its not substantially related

1.What was the former rep about? The stoller involvement in the easement issue was minimal

2.What is the current rep about? Mostly about the deed, not the easement

3. Is it likely that Stoller got 1.6 info from a former client relevant to the current rep? Low likelihood of him obtaining relevant, harmful 1.6 info about the eastment

Question 9

in stoller is there a 1.7 current client if concurrent rep

Answer 9

Yes! Its directly adverse, doesn’t matter if it’s substantially related
The key question: when does the AC relationship with the Zs end and Nustart start?

Question 10

1.18c Former Prospective clients

Answer 10

What makes this different from 1.9?
Here the lawyer actually has to RECEIVE that 1.6 info; 1.9 is about the MERE RISK
The tom and shibon example

Question 11

what does the restatement tell us about premature withdraw

Answer 11

The restatement tells us that you cant withdraw prematurely if the primary reason is to rep another client (and avoid conflict)
It violates duty of loyalty to current clients