Opinion ID: 6496837
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ability to Provide Effective Advocacy

Text: The Insurers’ only remaining argument is that because the Warren Pumps litigation “involve[d] substantially related issues” as will be raised in the Imerys Bankruptcy, JA 945, it impairs Patton’s ability to serve the future claimants’ interests. Their primary argument on this point is that a future claimant “would probably be displeased” with Patton’s appointment, “[e]specially when . . . this isn’t an unrelated case [to the Warren Pumps litigation]” and “[t]he arguments that [Young Conaway] was making in that case” about policy interpretation issues would be “adverse” to the arguments the FCR can be expected to make about the Insurers’ policies in this bankruptcy. 17 Tran. 64. But in typical conflicts analyses, “substantially related” does not refer to the similarities between the legal issues raised; rather, “[m]atters are ‘substantially related’ . . . if they involve the same transaction or legal dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the client’s position in the subsequent matter.” MODEL RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT r. 1.9 cmt. 3 (AM. BAR ASS’N 2020); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 132 (2000). Because the Insurers fail to show that Warren Pumps involved the same transactions or legal disputes as might be implicated by Patton’s future work as FCR in the Imerys bankruptcy, we can only say that the matters are “substantially 17 Apart from this argument, the Insurers support their contention of the cases being “substantially related” with only vague assertions that in both cases, “(i) more than one corporate entity asserts a claim to insurance policy proceeds, (ii) insurers have contribution rights among insurers, and (iii) there are issues raised regarding whether excess policies owe defense obligations and to whom under what limitations and conditions,” JA 975-76. 30 related” if there is a “substantial risk” that Patton and Young Conaway will use in the Imerys bankruptcy any confidential information that Young Conaway obtained from its representation of Continental and National Union in Warren Pumps. That is a fact-specific inquiry, see, e.g., Madukwe v. Del. State Univ., 552 F. Supp. 2d 452, 458 (D. Del. 2008), and the Insurers simply do not point to any facts that would establish any risk of weaponized confidential information. In any event, the Bankruptcy Court carefully considered this issue. After it set out an appointment standard quite close in substance to that which we adopt today—one centered on Patton’s ability to serve the future claimants’ interests effectively and impartially—the Court requested additional disclosures concerning the particular matters it thought relevant to its determination of whether Patton met that standard. One of those matters was Patton’s involvement in Young Conaway’s previously disclosed representation of “many if not all of the Certain Excess Insurance companies in insurance coverage litigation related to environmental liabilities, including asbestos liabilities.” JA 32. In response to that request, the Court received and considered not only Patton’s disclosures, but also the unsolicited supplemental objection of the Insurers raising the Warren Pumps conflict, Patton’s response to that objection, and several related declarations and exhibits. And what they revealed only bolstered the Court’s confidence in Patton: that Young Conaway had implemented an ethical wall between its work on Warren Pumps and Patton’s work as FCR in the Imerys bankruptcy, that Patton himself was never involved in the Warren Pumps matter at all, and that Young Conaway had billed only a handful of hours to the matter since 2016 and none since 2018. Given the state of the record on this issue and Patton’s reputation and qualifications for the FCR role, the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the alleged conflict would not impair Patton’s performance, and that his credentials, experience, and expertise would serve the future claimants’ interests with the required degree of independence and loyalty. 31