Find a Job

With the market picking up, don't miss out on Job Search for all the best vacancies from the World's leading law firms.

My Profile

Check all your messages, update your blog, change your account details,  find friends and much more on the My Profile section.

Main Discussion

Rate it
Report as offensive
Posted - 12 January 2017 10:02
it's not his lawyer - the other side of one actual dispute, and the other side of one commercial negotiation/potential dispute are both using the same lawyers.
Wangpain for real ale
Posted - 12 January 2017 10:07
Report as offensive
Sounds like the firm has decided there is no conflict and no risk of confidential info. Which seems like bollocks to me - if it's the same area and client A for example produces a piece of evidence that's confi to them but would be vital to client B's case the firm has tied itself in a ladypart 's knot. And (altho without knowing the nature of the dispute it's hard to tell) the risk of potential conflict seems pretty high to me clive
Wangpain for real ale
Posted - 12 January 2017 10:11
Report as offensive
Brad, do you ever worry you've gone a bit cynical?
Posted - 12 January 2017 10:27
Report as offensive
Yeah, that's what I thought. Meh.
Lord Admiral Corbyn
Posted - 12 January 2017 11:46
Report as offensive
There is no conflict of interest here.

The same firm is advising two different claimant parties against the same defendant.

Are you all fvcking simple or something?
Posted - 12 January 2017 11:52
Report as offensive
It sounds like there isn't a conflict in the positions of the two clients at the moment, but if there could be, or if confidential information in one dispute could be used in the other, the firm should put a Chinese Wall in place. I've been involved in some cast-of-thousands cases where there were a couple of instances of two claimants/defendants using the same law firm, but always different teams and always Chinese Walled.

If your mate isn't happy, the easiest thing to do would be to instruct someone else. I'm happy to have a chat offline if you want. I might even recommend someone who isn't me.
Posted - 12 January 2017 12:04
Report as offensive
The rule is simple re chinese walls - they are about confidentiality and not conflicts

A duty of confidentiality is owed to both clients
A duty of full disclosure is owed to both clients
You cant fully disclose something that is confidential so the firm can't act
the parties waive the duty of confidentiality or the parties agree that the firm has put in place a barrier to prevent the confidential information being available to the two separate teams working. This needs consent. It cant be done without consent. The barrier has to be physical and electronic. its unlikely a team would be able to create that barrier for example if they worked in the same location with the same printers / secretaries - perhaps on different floors or in different offices.
Posted - 12 January 2017 14:38
Report as offensive
Doesn't sound like a technical legal conflict at this stage - but you never know how the situations may develop, so given the main issue is the same I'd say there's a potential risk of a conflict in future. What if the lawsuits have the potential to bankrupt the company, if successful? Which client would get what amounts? I assume the engagement letters contain a clause stating that the firm can withdraw if it identifies conflicts down the line?

Confidentiality is deffo a concern here. If it were to go tits-up, how confident would the firm feel in arguing in court / to the SRA that it was entirely ok to use the same team of lawyers?

At the very least, each client should be made aware of the firm's role for the other one. Obtaining consent to act using the same team (or even a different team with info barriers) is probably a good idea, however there is some case law on info barriers / conflicts / confi info which, if I recall correctly, suggests that in some scenarios info barriers are not sufficient (info invariably "leaks" through a firm and with Wobbler being a longstanding client of the firm I imagine the firm will have a good level of confi info on the client's business). I remember another case where the judges said that a client could be considered a "layman" - depending on the subject matter in question - which could call into question the validity of any consent obtained from them.

Posted - 12 January 2017 14:47
Report as offensive
UP, that's M&S telling Freshfields they couldn't act for Green in an M&S takeover as they'd previously acted for M&S.

Apparently J's company has a non-binding mou for trading partners that says they will keep materials confidential. He's going to remind both parties of if.
Posted - 12 January 2017 14:52
Report as offensive
Surely they would just use an IB to be safe? or Safer at least? seems odd. Is team 1 very small and the only people that could undertake the work
Posted - 12 January 2017 15:14
Report as offensive
There's also a case involving some dodgy Russian / Ukrainian folk and White & Case
Capt Haddock
Posted - 12 January 2017 15:30
Report as offensive
what wango said and heh @ people trying to interpret this in anything other than the obvious ways.

Cyp - you know the answer.