In this Issue:
Duties to Non-Clients ─ Avoiding Liability Arising Out of Unintended Lawyer-Client Relationships
Update: McIntosh County Bank et al. vs. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 745 N.W. 2d 538 (Minn. 2008)
This update follows our December 2006 and June 2007 editions, which discussed risk management implications of two cases arising out of the same transaction ─ Bremer Business Finance Corporation v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, and McIntosh County Bank et al. v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP. This update addresses the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in the McIntosh case, issued March 6, 2008.
Litigation Misconduct ─ Attorneys Fees Assessed Against Client and Law firm for Pursuing Frivolous Claims, Despite Fact that Claims Survived Summary Judgment and Client Received a Favorable Jury Verdict (Which Was Later Set Aside)
Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. BrainLAB Medizinische Computersystems GmbH, 2008 WL 410413 (D. Colo. Feb. 12, 2008)
Risk Management Issue: What is the scope of counsel’s responsibility to reexamine litigation strategy and make an objective assessment of the validity of clients’ claims during the course of a case? What practice management techniques are available to assist law firms to meet such responsibilities?
Preservation of Electronic Evidence – Avoiding Adverse Spoliation Instruction Requires Coordination of Efforts between In-house and Outside Counsel
Treppel v. Biovail, ___FRD___, 2008 WL 866594 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2008)
Risk Management Issue: What is the scope of outside counsel’s responsibility to ensure that his or her client institutes a full preservation program to preserve all relevant documents including electronically stored information, and that the preserved documents are properly identified and produced on a timely basis during discovery?
Conflicts Of Interest ─ Multiple Party Representation ─ Attorney’s Duty to Withdraw from the Engagement when Continuing the Representation Would Require Impermissible Disclosure of One Client’s Confidences to Another Client
Formal Opinion 08-450, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
The ABA was asked to analyze a hypothetical situation in which an insurance company retains a lawyer to defend an insured employer and an employee for whose conduct the employer may be held vicariously liable. In the course of a confi dential conversation with the lawyer, the employee client reveals facts suggesting that the employee may have acted outside the scope of his employment ─ something which could both negate insurance coverage and provide the employer-client with a defense. The Opinion addresses what the lawyer must or may do in these circumstances, both in those states in which the lawyer may be considered to have three clients (insurer, employer and employee) and those states in which the lawyer may be considered to have only two clients (insurer and insured). While this Opinion analyzes a hypothetical employer-employee-insurance defense scenario, the same analysis could easily apply to many circumstances involving the representation of multiple clients in both litigation and non-litigation matters.
This newsletter has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. |