Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc. case brief summary
708 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983)
Appellants, two law firms, sought review from orders of United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois, disqualifying them from representing plaintiff corporation in an antitrust suit. The original firm also sought review of the order directing it to pay defendant another corporation's attorney fees, while the other corporation contended it should have received more.
OVERVIEW:
The original law firm and the trial law firm were disqualified by the district court from representing a corporation in an anti-trust suit because the original law firm had represented another corporation in a substantially related matter. The trial law firm, which was brought into the case by the original law firm, was disqualified because of the co-counsel relationship. Both sought review of the disqualification order. The original law firm also sought review of an order directing it to pay the other corporation's attorney fees, and the other corporation contended that it should have received more fees.
HOLDING:
The trial law firm's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where it lacked standing.
ANALYSIS:
The order disqualifying the original law firm and assessing fees was affirmed where the original law firm had represented the other corporation in a substantially related matter giving it access to potentially relevant confidential data, where the law firm unreasonably contested disqualification, and where the fee award was reasonable.
RULES:
-A lawyer may not represent an adversary of his former client if the subject matter of the two representations is "substantially related," which means: if the lawyer could have obtained confidential information in the first representation that would have been relevant in the second.
-It is irrelevant whether he actually obtained such information and used it against his former client, or whether -- if the lawyer is a firm rather than an individual practitioner -- different people in the firm handled the two matters and scrupulously avoided discussing them
OUTCOME: The court dismissed the order relating to the trial law firm's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order disqualifying the original law firm and assessing fees and expenses was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
708 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983)
Appellants, two law firms, sought review from orders of United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois, disqualifying them from representing plaintiff corporation in an antitrust suit. The original firm also sought review of the order directing it to pay defendant another corporation's attorney fees, while the other corporation contended it should have received more.
OVERVIEW:
The original law firm and the trial law firm were disqualified by the district court from representing a corporation in an anti-trust suit because the original law firm had represented another corporation in a substantially related matter. The trial law firm, which was brought into the case by the original law firm, was disqualified because of the co-counsel relationship. Both sought review of the disqualification order. The original law firm also sought review of an order directing it to pay the other corporation's attorney fees, and the other corporation contended that it should have received more fees.
HOLDING:
The trial law firm's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where it lacked standing.
ANALYSIS:
The order disqualifying the original law firm and assessing fees was affirmed where the original law firm had represented the other corporation in a substantially related matter giving it access to potentially relevant confidential data, where the law firm unreasonably contested disqualification, and where the fee award was reasonable.
RULES:
-A lawyer may not represent an adversary of his former client if the subject matter of the two representations is "substantially related," which means: if the lawyer could have obtained confidential information in the first representation that would have been relevant in the second.
-It is irrelevant whether he actually obtained such information and used it against his former client, or whether -- if the lawyer is a firm rather than an individual practitioner -- different people in the firm handled the two matters and scrupulously avoided discussing them
OUTCOME: The court dismissed the order relating to the trial law firm's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order disqualifying the original law firm and assessing fees and expenses was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment