Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085-63/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRISKIT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

REALNETWORKS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 03-05085 WWS

ORDER GRANTING 

GLASER’S MOTION TO

INTERVENE AND DENYING

HIS MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY FOLEY &

LARDNER LLP

Rob Glaser has moved to intervene for the limited purpose of moving for the

disqualification of the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP (Foley). Glaser is Chairman of the

Board and CEO of defendant RealNetworks (Real). He owns 32.4 percent of the outstanding

shares of Real stock. On March 6, 2007, he signed a letter engaging the Foley firm as attorneys

in a matter pending in the New York court unrelated to the instant litigation. At the time Foley

was representing Friskit, plaintiff in this litigation.

Glaser’s motion is timely, having been filed within approximately two weeks of the time

that he learned of Foley’s representation of Friskit. Glaser asserts a protectable interest in the

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 784 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

duty of loyalty owed him by Foley, and that his own financial interests are at stake in this

litigation. See Arakaki v Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 24 is liberally construed). Because Real is not a Foley client and may

lack standing, Glaser’s personal interest may not be adequately represented by Real. Glaser’s

motion to intervene will therefore be granted.

Glaser contends that Foley is violating the duty of loyalty owed to him by representing

Friskit in this litigation. He argues that California Rules of Professional Conduct “prohibit

lawyers from representing entities that are adverse to existing clients” (emphasis added). The

question is whether Foley’s representation of Friskit is adverse to an existing client. Glaser’s

motion states that “as of at least March 6, 2007, and continuing through the present, Foley has

been simultaneously representing Mr. Glaser and Friskit.” The assertion is indisputable but

misses the point. There is no evidence that when Foley took on the representation of Friskit,

Glaser was an existing client. To the contrary, when Foley took on the representation of Glaser,

Friskit was an existing client.

Glaser cites no authority for the proposition that an attorney may be disqualified from

representing his existing client on the motion of a later-acquired client. The cases cited do not

support such a proposition. In Flatt v. Superior Court, the court held that “the requirement of

undivided loyalty to the first client negates any duty on the part of the attorney to inform the

second client of the statute of limitations.” Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 4th 275, 278 (1994)

(emphasis added). The decision does not deal with disqualification but it reviews at length the

cases on conflicting representation. Quoting from the leading case of Jeffrey v. Pounds, 67 Cal.

App. 3d 6 (Cal Ct. App. 1977), it states that “the decisions condemn acceptance of employment

adverse to a client even though the employment is unrelated to existing representation.” Flatt, 9

Cal. 4th at 287. The court went on to quote from Anderson v. Eaton, 211 Cal. 113 (1930): “an

attorney is precluded from assuming any relation which would prevent him from devoting his

entire energies to his client’s interests.” Id. at 289. It is thus clear that the duty of loyalty runs

to the first client and precludes disqualification at the instance of the later-acquired client.

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 784 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

Glaser also cites Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC, 350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004),

where the court granted a motion to disqualify the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. The case

is distinguishable. Dr. Winchell, who was a partner in Concat, retained attorney Thomas, a

partner at Morgan, Lewis for estate planning services. Id. at 801. The court found that he had

made disclosures to Thomas that were inextricably intertwined with the business and financial

matters of Concat. Id. at 802. In granting the motion, the court reasoned that 

Morgan, Lewis should have checked for a potential conflict before agreeing to

undertake the representation of Unilever. It is at least arguable that, had they

done so with sufficient thoroughness, they would have discovered the connection

between Thomas and Concat/Chelator, via Dr. Winchell.

Id at 821. Glaser makes no claim that had Foley checked for a potential conflict before taking

on Friskit, it would have discovered a connection with Glaser (who, of course, at the time had

not become a client.).

It is implicit under the California cases, and the Rules of Professional Conduct, that the

duty of loyalty runs to the existing client, and is not subordinate to any duty owed a lateracquired client. That duty bars the attorney from taking on a representation that conflicts with

that of the existing client. To enforce that duty by disqualifying the attorney from representing

his existing client would turn the duty of loyalty on its head. 

The motion to disqualify Foley is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________________________

WILLIAM W SCHWARZER

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 784 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3