Source: https://www.legalrisk.co.uk/services/conflicts/rm-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:12:36+00:00

Document:
Acting Against a Former Client – When are Matters Not “Related”?
A proposed merger of a firm of accountants, which was instructed to provide expert evidence in an action against auditors, with another firm that had been retained by the auditors gave rise to a conflict of interest and breach of the retainer.
Former client – confidential information, application of principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm)  2 AC 222. Solicitors restrained from acting.
The High Court in Northern Ireland refused to restrain solicitors from acting where they had acted for the opposing party 20 years previously. The decision also addresses the delay in making the application, which suggested that the underlying reason for the application was tactical.
Confidentiality Obligations for Lawyer Blogging and Other Public Commentary.
The “Generally Known” Exception to Former-Client Confidentiality.
These Model Rules of Professional Conduct serve as models for the ethics rules of most states in the United States. However the rules of individual states may vary significantly. See Model Rules 1.7 to 1.11.
Solicitors restrained from acting where inadvertent conduct constituted a breach of prior undertaking in relation to information barrier.
Application to restrain solicitors from acting refused on the basis of information barrier supported by undertakings.
Whether respondent financial institution and client were in a fiduciary relationship, adequacy of information barrier.
Breach of fiduciary duty to former client in relation to confidential information, Damages awarded for breach of contract/negligence (but no additional award for breach of fiduciary duty).
Whether claimant was personally a former client – confidential information, application of principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm)  2 AC 222. Solicitors restrained from acting.
US decision in a case arising from enforcement of an arbitration award held under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules, holding that an English barrister appointed as arbitrator was not subject to a conflict where another member of the barrister’s chambers had represented interests adverse to the Government of Belize, because English barristers operate as independent practitioners.
Landmark case on protection of confidential information of former client and efficacy of information barrier.
A solicitor had no conflict of interest in negotiating a contingency fee agreement, and, on the facts, no obligation to tell the claimant, an experienced businessman, to seek separate advice.
Millett LJ described a fiduciary as "..someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he must not act for his own benefit or for the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations."
Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0005 (Seeking Advice About Current Clients) – considers what ethical obligations arise when lawyers in a law firm consult with external or in-house counsel on an ethical issue or a possible error by the law firm.
Australian case considering ‘Getting to know you’ factors, referred to in American cases as ‘playbook conflicts’, holding that the information in question must be identified with precision and not merely in global terms in order to constitute confidential information.
Please note this has now been repealed by the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 with effect from 6 October 2011.
US case - Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP disqualified in substantially related matters. An advance waiver lacked informed consent, and the screen was too late to be effective.
Blog by Keith Swisher, Associate Professor of Law at Arizona Summit Law School, about disqualification in litigation.
e2Interactive, Inc. v Blackhawk Network, Inc.
Advance waiver, subsidiaries and affiliates. Motions to disqualify require the court to balance "the sacrosanct privacy of the attorney-client relationship (and the professional integrity implicated by that relationship) and the prerogative of a party to proceed with counsel of its choice."
Scottish case: Firm A acted for a policyholder in an insurance dispute, then ceased acting. Firm B acquired Firm A, employing the solicitor who had acted for the policyholder as a part-time consultant, and other members of the firm acted for the insurer in the same dispute. There was no formal information barrier in place, but Firm B submitted that there was no risk of casual or accidental disclosure. The Inner House of the Court of Session declined to order Firm B to cease acting. However the court expressed the view that the case may prompt the professional bodies to reflect on their codes of conduct.
A claims control clause in an insurance policy entitled the insurer’s liquidator to terminate a solicitor’s retainer and appoint other solicitors to act for the insurer and the insured. Groom v. Crocker  1 KB 194 and Reg. 6 of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990 considered.
Own-interest conflict arising from litigation funding agreement and the claimants’ solicitors investment in the case.
US case – A ‘general and open-ended waiver’ would ordinarily be ineffective but if the client is ‘an experienced user of legal services’ and is ‘reasonably informed regarding the risk that a conflict may arise,’ the consent is more likely to be effective. Galderma was a sophisticated client and the waiver was held to apply.
Whether the principles in Bolkiah v KPMG  2 A.C. 222 applied with equal force to a former employed or in-house litigator – tentative, obiter view that they did not.
Solicitors from acting against a former client in commercial proceedings against their owners - real risk of misuse of confidential information which the solicitors had acquired when previously acting for the companies.
US case on meaning of ‘substantially related’ in an intellectual property case.
Lateral hire – Court of Appeal refused to restrain solicitors from acting as the risk of disclosure was more theoretical than real; the information related to transactional matters conducted some years before. One had to stand back from the adversarial process and assess how likely the risk of disclosure really is.
An injunction was refused upon the basis that the firm of solicitors undertook that the lateral hire solicitor with knowledge of material information would work in a separate office.
The Court of Appeal refused to set aside the appointment of an arbitrator who failed to disclose later, related appointments, holding that he should have disclosed them but a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility that the arbitrator was biased.
Solicitors who acted for two clients in a property transaction, despite a conflict of interests, were held liable to the claimant. Their duty to the claimant was not modified by the fact they owed duties to the other client. It would be a breach of duty to a client to provide information relating to that client (in this case, a conviction) to the claimant even though it was in the public domain.
When seeking a waiver, an attorney’s duty to disclose any representation adverse to the interests of its client could not be fulfilled by mentioning "in passing" participation in a brief contrary to the interests of the client without stating the details of why the interests are contrary. The failure fully to disclose the client’s exposure, as well as the extent of its participation in this action, fell short of the "undivided loyalty" it owed to its client. The details are essential to informed consent so that the client can weigh and measure the nature of the contrary interests and give informed consent based upon knowledge of material facts.
Australian case considering ‘Getting to know you’ factors, referred to in American cases as ‘playbook conflicts’ will only rarely constitute confidential information.
There was no conflict of interest where a barrister acted on a wife's behalf in ancillary relief proceedings, having previously acted the husband in ancillary relief proceedings relating to his previous divorce. The husband was the author of his own misfortune in consenting to the barrister acting for the wife before the District Judge.
Executorship: A person who is asserting a claim which is adverse to an estate should not take out a grant of representation, as a personal representative is in a fiduciary position. If a law firm knows of the claim, it should advise the person.
Lateral hire. Summary of the principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm)  2 AC 222. Successful appeal against order restraining solicitors from acting. Information barriers held to be sufficient.
Scottish case: breach of the no-conflict duty by the solicitor was not regarded as a breach of an implied term in the contract for provision of legal services.
Court of Appeal upheld order restraining solicitors from acting. See also first instance decision of Laurence Collins J below.
Order restraining solicitors from acting where there was a real risk of a conflict of interests and potential breach of confidential information arising from prior retainer, which could not be protected by information barriers. The conflict rules were not limited to ‘same transaction' cases. There simply had to be a reasonable or sufficient degree of relationship between the two matters. Solicitors could not wait to see if the takeover bid went hostile before deciding whether to act.
The Competition Appeals Tribunal held that there was no potential conflict of interests arising from the costs funding arrangement in an application for a collective proceedings order, in an action brought on behalf of a class of 46.2 million people, under sect 47B of the Competition Act 1998.
Australian case considering ‘Getting to know you’ factors, referred to in American cases as ‘playbook conflicts’ are not generally confidential information.
American case upholding privilege for in-house General Counsel with useful guidance for small firms.
Solicitor acting for lender and borrower was under a duty to disclose facts to the lender which cast doubt on the valuation on which the advance was being made.
Scottish decision in matrimonial proceedings restraining solicitors from acting for husband after lateral hire of solicitor who had acted for the wife while at his previous firm. In applying Bolkiah v KPMG, and assessing whether there was a risk to confidential information, the court noted that despite a culture of confidentiality in the firm, there was a risk of inadvertent disclosure: the file contained three documents from an unrelated client’s file, and some confidential information had been disclosed without consent in an affidavit; there was also inadequate explanation of the systems limiting access to electronic files and what controls were in place, and ad hoc procedures were unlikely to suffice.
See Introduction, paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3, and Rule 7.
Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision on conflicts applied to insurance defence solicitors defending a claim on behalf of insurers and insured, while simultaneously representing the insurers on coverage.
Insurance litigation – solicitor acting for insurer and insured. Insurer denied coverage. Solicitor ceased acting for insured. Insured failed to obtain order restraining solicitor from continuing to act for insurer.
A buyer’s solicitor provided limited services to the seller but there was no breach of fiduciary duty nor of the double employment rule and the seller was taken to have given his informed consent. Clark Boyce v Mouat  AC 428 applied.
Information barriers held to provide sufficient protection to ensure there was no real risk to confidential information, applying the principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm)  2 AC 222.
Application to remove a liquidator on the ground that a lateral hire employee held confidential information.
There is no absolute rule of law in England that a solicitor may not act in litigation against a former client. A solicitor may be restrained from acting if such a restriction is necessary to avoid a significant risk of the disclosure or misuse of confidential information belonging to the former client. An injunction was refused even though this was only a two partner firm.
The Privy Council, citing Groom v Crocker  1 KB 194, held that a clause in an insurance policy did not provide carte blanche to insurers to conduct proceedings in their own interests, without regard to reality or to their insured’s account of events or to the fact that here the claim was likely severely to affect their insured.
Appeal dismissed against award of damages for libel. Solicitor held to be in breach of fiduciary duty to the person behind a limited company, lifting the corporate veil.
Article by Janine Griffiths-Baker and Nancy J. Moore on the problems of implementing conflicts policies in global law firms caused by differences between conflicts rules. The article compares the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
Own interest conflict: a solicitor proposing either to buy property from or sell property to a client or even for a client is under a duty to cause the client to obtain independent advice.
Failed application by potential client following a meeting set up for the purpose of conflicting the solicitor out of acting for his wife in divorce proceedings.
American case in which it was held that a law firm’s knowledge of a former client’s “methods of negotiating settlements,” “litigation strategies,” and litigation “playbook” does not warrant disqualification, and does not preclude the firm from undertaking factually distinct representations adverse to them.
Decision of the Californian Supreme Court holding advance conflicts waiver ineffective.
Own interest conflict – arbitrator.
Signature MD, Inc. v. MDVIP, Inc.
Information barriers were found to be ineffective because they were only implemented two days after the second instruction (US case).
See rules 24 to 31.
The solicitor’s duty of confidence to a liquidator was displaced where the liquidator had co-operated with a creditor to a high degree and the solicitor could therefore act for the creditor in subsequent proceedings against the liquidator. Consideration of joint retainer issues.
Failed attempt to remove opponent’s counsel on grounds of confidential information said to have been acquired socially.
Solicitors restrained from acting against former clients, applying the principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm)  2 AC 222. See appeal link below.
Appeal dismissed against order restraining solicitors from acting against former client.
In force from 6 October 2011.
As part of a wider review of regulation, the SRA have proposed to retain the rule on conflicts of interests broadly in the current form provided by Chapter 3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. See paragraphs 91-98 of ‘Our response to consultation: Looking to the Future - flexibility and public protection’ and Rule 6 in each of ‘Annex 2 - Code of Conduct for Solicitors’ and ‘Annex 3 - Code of Conduct for firms’.
Independence, representation and risk report October 2015 – independent research by Claire Coe Smith and Dr Steven Vaughan. The report includes a review of the impact of outside counsel guidelines on law firm independence.
Proceedings in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal arising out of Georgian American Alloys Inc & others v White & Case LLP  EWCH 94. Under an Agreed Outcome, the SDT imposed fines of £50,000 and costs of £12,500 on the partner and £250,000 and costs of £25,000 on the firm.
Proceedings in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in which it was held that there was a ‘clear risk of conflict of interest’ where the solicitor was in a personal, intimate relationship with a client for whom he had acted in matrimonial proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had sought advice from the SRA’s Ethics Advice Line on two occasions as to his position, and that the response was at best opaque.
Solicitor fined £305,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for an own interest conflict.
Agreed outcome on allegation of own interest conflict while acting for client after admitting a mistake which may entitle the client to bring a negligence claim.
It was not sufficient for a solicitor receiving loans from clients to advise those clients to obtain independent legal advice: they must in fact receive such advice, and if they refused to obtain it, the solicitor must refuse to accept the loans.
Failure to maintain record of informed consent when acting for seller, buyer and lender in conveyancing transactions and also as selling agent through its estate agency business.
Disciplinary action against a matrimonial solicitor who disclosed to his client the address of the property being purchased by his client's ex-wife for whom the firm's conveyancing department was acting. Under an agreed outcome, the solicitor was fined £15,000 and the firm £20,000, with costs of £7,000.
Court ordered lawyer to disgorge profits for breach of fiduciary duty after lawyer took a financial interest in a second client in same line of business.
Court of Appeal of British Columbia upholding a finding by a Law Society panel that a lawyer was guilty of professional misconduct for failing to disclose a conflict of interests.
Solicitor acted for the liquidator of a company in litigation funded by a creditor. Co-operation resulted in disclosure of confidential information between the two displacing the ordinary duty of confidence owed to the liquidator by the solicitor. The solicitor was permitted to continue acting for the creditor in subsequent proceedings against the liquidator.
American decision applying “substantial relationship” test to former client conflict in intellectual property case.
Claimant failed in her claim against solicitors for alleged conflict of interest/failure to seek separate advice on a declaration of trust in cohabitation case. Limited retainer not extending to the merits of the previously agreed terms, though they were advantageous to the claimant in any event on the facts.
Decision addresses the conflicts provisions in the Law Society's Guide to Professsional Conduct of Solicitors, now replaced by the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
US case – Court refused to disqualify Heller Ehrman. The waiver contained full disclosure of the firm acting for Visa and that it would only act for First Data on condition it could continue to act for Visa in any future disputes. First Data was a ‘sophisticated user of legal services’ and capable of ‘understanding the full extent of what it waived’.
Decision of the High Court of Singapore holding that a court may take into account in applying [the substantially related matter] test, for example, the solicitor’s knowledge of the disposition of the former client which is neither confidential information nor information which is directly relevant to the subject-matter of the later matter’ and may therefore take into account the ‘larger public interest … and that is the solicitor-client relationship of trust and public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession’.
International arbitration case involving a challenge for apparent bias based on alleged conflict of interest. The arbitrator’s firm (but not the arbitrator) regularly advises an affiliate of the Defendant (but not the Defendant), a fact of which the arbitrator was unaware as the firm’s conflict check systems did not alert him to this, due to the way in which the acquisition of the affiliate by a client of the firm was named within the firm. The court declined to apply the International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration 2014 at para.1.4 which identified this as a non-waivable conflict of interest.
The court declined to prevent a defendant insurer from relying upon a fire expert who had carried out an initial investigation on behalf of the insurers and also provided assistance to the claimant insured in connection with a potential claim against another party. The expert had not received information confidential to the claimant, and in any event, as an expert witness, he had an overriding duty to the court.
Joint retainer - claimant, a former client, failed in application to prevent solicitors acting against him on the basis that information was confidential.
Conflict between company and pension fund trustees.
Accountants – claimant’s unsuccessful application to prevent merger due to conflict, order making provision for information barriers.
Husband’s successful application for an order restraining his wife’s solicitors from acting when a partner had previously acted for him while at another firm. Application of principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v. KPMG (A Firm)  2 AC 222.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.