Opinion ID: 358573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If it became law, would S.489 apply to your company?

Text: II. If S.489 were to become law, what would be your best good faith estimate of the $$ value of the assets that you would have to divest, in the: (a) coal business (b) oil shale business (c)(1) production, mining & milling of uranium (2) nuclear fuel cycle (d) nuclear fuel cycle (e) geothermal steam business (f) solar energy business (g) other III. Approximately how much has your company spent in the last year, the last five years, and the last ten years for research and development in connection with: (a) mining of coal (b) gasification of coal (c) liquefaction of coal (d) development of oil shale (e) development of tar sands (f) (1) exploration, mining & milling of uranium (2) nuclear fuel cycle (g) nuclear reactors (h) exploration, mining, or production of geothermal steam, (i) solar energy. IV. What are your company's last good faith estimates of planned or projected research and development outlays for the next five years, and for the next ten years, in connection with: (a) mining of coal (b) gasification of coal (c) liquefaction of coal (d) development of oil shale (e) development of tar sands (f)(1) exploration, mining & milling of uranium (2) nuclear fuel cycle (g) nuclear reactors (h) exploration, mining, or production of geothermal steam (i) solar energy. 4 Rothman v. Wilson, 121 F.2d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 1941); Hensley v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 248, 281 F.2d 605, 607 (1960); Brinkley v. Farmers Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 485 F.2d 1283, 1286 (10th Cir. 1973) 5 In Rothman, the court of appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of clients against an attorney for fraud in obtaining secret profits in business transactions; in Hensley, the court held that an attorney can waive a jury trial on behalf of his client as a tactical decision; in Brinkley, the court held that a client was not liable under the doctrine of Respondeat superior for the tortious conduct of his attorney which caused injury to a third party 6 Allman v. Winkelman, 106 F.2d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1939), Cert. denied, 309 U.S. 668, 60 S.Ct. 608, 84 L.Ed. 1014 (1940) (lawyer's advice to his client establishes a professional relationship though it be gratis); Fort Meyers Seafood Packers, Inc. v. Steptoe and Johnson, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 93, 94, 381 F.2d 261, 262 (1967), Cert. denied, 390 U.S. 946, 88 S.Ct. 1033, 19 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1968) (attorney's fees paid by third party: If appellant is not obligated to pay appellees for their services, it does not follow that there was no attorney-and-client relation); Dresden v. Willock, 518 F.2d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 1975) (The fact that Dresden was to be paid by receiving stock in the enterprise did not change the nature of the (attorney-client) relationship); E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, 388 (S.D.Tex.1969) (Relation of attorney and client is not dependent on the payment of a fee) 7 Udall v. Littell, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 97, 366 F.2d 668, 676 (1966), Cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1007 (1967); E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Brown, supra note 6, at 388 8 G. Hazard, Ethics in the Practice of Law (1978) 43; J. Lieberman, Crises at the Bar (1978) 189 9 A lawyer employed or retained by a corporation or similar entity owes his allegiance to the entity and not to a stockholder, director, officer, employee, representative, or other person connected with the entity. ABA, Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 5-18 10 Hazard, Supra note 8, at 46-54; Lieberman, Supra note 8, at 189-91. The potential for conflict also exists for the lawyer for the government. Hazard, at 54; Lieberman, at 191-92 11 Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 294 F.Supp. 1148, 1150 (E.D.Pa.1969) (privilege case); United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 278 F.Supp. 608, 614 (W.D.Pa.1967) (privilege case); Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 16 F.R.D. 31 (S.D.N.Y.1954) 12 ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 4-1: Both the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer and client and the proper functioning of the legal system require the presentation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one who has employed or sought to employ him. Cf. McCormick on Evidence (2d ed. 1972), § 88, p. 179: Communications in the course of preliminary discussion with a view to employing the lawyer are privileged though the employment is in the upshot not accepted. See also, Taylor v. Sheldon, 172 Ohio St. 118, 173 N.E.2d 892, 895 (1961) 13 ABA, Opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics (1967 ed.), Formal Op. 247 (1942). See also, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Walker, 382 F.2d 548 (7th Cir. 1967), Cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1045, 88 S.Ct. 789, 19 L.Ed.2d 837 (1968). For general discussion of conflicts inherent in insurance matters, see H. Drinker, Legal Ethics (1953) 114-18; L. Patterson and E. Cheatham, The Profession of the Law (1971) 237-40 14 McCormick on Evidence (2d ed. 1972), § 88, p. 179. See also, R. Wise, Legal Ethics (1970) 284: The deciding factor is what the prospective client thought when he made the disclosure, not what the lawyer thought. 15 Thurmond, paras. 6-8; 448 F.Supp. at 1292 16 Hefler, para. 12; 448 F.Supp. at 1294 17 Copley, para. 7; 448 F.Supp. at 1294 18 Note Attorney's Conflict of Interests: Representation of Interest Adverse to That of Former Client, 55 Bost.U.L.Rev. 61, 66 (1975) 19 Supreme Court Order, November 20, 1972 20 Rules of Evidence for the United States Courts and Magistrates as approved by Supreme Court (West Pub. Co. 1972), Rule 503(a)(1) 21 McCormick on Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 88, pp. 179-80 22 448 F.Supp. at 1292-93 23 448 F.Supp. at 1292 24 ABA, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 4: A lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a client. 25 ABA, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 5: A lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client. 26 ABA, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9: A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. 27 Schloetter v. Railoc of Indiana, Inc., 546 F.2d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 1976). See also, Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 435 F.Supp. 84, 96 (S.D.N.Y.), Rev'd in part and aff'd in part, 567 F.2d 225, 229, n.10 (2d Cir. 1977) 28 Judge Fairchild notes that he has a different view on this point. It is his understanding that on appeal, Kirkland does not rely on a Chinese wall theory. In his opinion, if it had been established that there was real insulation in all relevant particulars between the lawyers working in the Washington office on the API Report and those working in the Chicago office on the antitrust action, imputation of knowledge to all partners would be eliminated from consideration and a different result may have been appropriate 29