Opinion ID: 173577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: BACKGROUND a) Attorney-Client Relationship between Johnson & Johnson and Blank Rome

Text: J&J entered into an Engagement Agreement with Blank Rome in 2004. The agreement, contained in a letter to J&J (2004 Letter), describes the scope of Blank Rome's representation as limited to compliance matters involving J&J and J&J affiliates in connection with the European Union ... Data Protection Directive and potential certification to the U.S. Safe Harbor. The bulk of the agreement concerns two provisions purporting to waive certain conflicts of interest. The first provision addresses Blank Rome's concurrent representation of Kimberly-Clark in a specific patent matter adverse to [J&J's] corporate affiliate, McNeil PPC, Inc. Specifically, it sets out the Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to attorneys representing an enterprise with diverse operations and concludes that Blank Rome is free to continue to represent Kimberly-Clark in that matter so long as J&J agrees to waive the conflict. The second provision in the 2004 Letter to J&J seeks a prospective waiver of all conflicts arising out of Blank Rome's representation of Kimberly-Clark in patent matters adverse to J&J and affiliates. The prospective waiver provision provides: We believe that if, in the future, our firm were requested by Kimberly-Clark to represent it in patent matters related to Johnson & Johnson or its affiliates or subsidiaries, our representation of Johnson & Johnson in the Data Protection Matters and in other unrelated matters and our present and future representation of Kimberly-Clark would not adversely affect our relationship with either client.... Specifically, this letter seeks confirmation that, should our representation of Kimberly-Clark in connection with patent-related proceedings involve Johnson & Johnson, or any other entity related to Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson consents, and will not object, to our continuing representation of Kimberly-Clark in connection with these proceedings.... A final part of the 2004 Letter summarizes the terms of the two waivers and directly asks J&J to acknowledge that you are aware of the conflict of interests that results from our representation of Kimberly-Clark and Johnson & Johnson but that notwithstanding that conflict ... you consent to our representation of Johnson & Johnson and our simultaneous continued representation of Kimberly-Clark. Blank Rome also attached a standard Addendum, which provides in relevant part: Unless otherwise agreed to in writing or we specifically undertake such additional representation at your request, we represent only the client named in the engagement letter and not its affiliates, subsidiaries, partners, joint venturers, employees, directors, officers, shareholders, members, owners, agencies, departments or divisions. If our engagement is limited to a specific matter or transaction, and we are not engaged to represent you in other matters, our attorney-client relationship will terminate upon the completion of our services with respect to such matter or transaction whether or not we send you a letter to confirm the termination of our representation. In 2005, Blank Rome sent another letter to J&J (2005 Letter) seeking to amend the terms of the Engagement Agreement. The 2005 Letter first explains that Blank Rome had increased its representation of generic drug manufacturers in patent-related matters. It specifically notes that the firm's representation of these new clients could lead to conflicts with its existing clients, such as J&J, that are known as branded drug manufactures. The 2005 Letter then states: The Addendum to our current engagement letter stipulates that we represent only [J&J], and not its affiliates, subsidiaries, partners, divisions and joint venturers. However, the Letter goes on to request the following waiver from J&J: Specifically, this letter seeks confirmation that, should our representation of generic drug manufacturers in connection with patent-related proceedings involve Johnson & Johnson, or any other entity related to Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson consents, and will not object, to our continuing representation of the generic drug manufacturers in connection with these proceedings, and should we determine that our withdrawal as counsel is necessary for us under the Rules of Professional Conduct to continue to represent the generic drug manufacturers, Johnson & Johnson consents, and will not object, to our firm's withdrawal at such time. A final part of the 2005 Letter specifically asks J&J to acknowledge: you [J&J] provide your prospective consent to our [Blank Rome's] representation of generic drug manufacturers in patent-related proceedings involving Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates and subsidiaries. Pursuant to this Engagement Agreement, Blank Rome advised J&J on a variety of privacy matters, much of which was related to J&J affiliates. In particular, Jennifer Daniels, a partner at Blank Rome, provided affiliates with privacy-related services, including the preparation of policies and procedures, guidance documents, and training materials. In 2006, Ms. Daniels represented BabyCenter in a privacy-related matter. Blank Rome did not, however, advise J&J with regard to the E-Commerce Services Agreement (E-Commerce Agreement) between BabyCenter and GSI, which is the subject of the current litigation. It also appears that Blank Rome received no confidential information relevant to that agreement during its representation of J&J or, separately, BabyCenter.