New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Conflicts, Disqualification & the Revolving Partnership Door at Big Firms

Download PDF

The plaintiff in LifeNet, Inc. v. Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29058 (E.D. Va. April 10, 2007), accused the defendant of willful patent infringement. In its defense, defendant MTF intended to rely on the opinion that was rendered in 2002 by a Pennie & Edmonds’ partner named Stimpson who concluded that defendant MTF’s process did not infringe the plaintiff LifeNet’s patent. In 2003, as Pennie & Edmonds dissolved, Stimpson moved to Morgan Lewis & Bockius. In February 2007, after this case was in suit, plaintiff’s longtime IP counsel moved from Baker & McKenzie to Morgan, Lewis. The defendant promptly moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel. Almost as promptly, Stimpson left Morgan Lewis. Held, no disqualification. Three facts led District Judge Henry Hudson to this conclusion: (i) the departure of Stimpson from Morgan Lewis; (ii) the fact that Stimpson did not actually impart any privileged information to the two longtime lawyers for LifeNet who moved to Morgan Lewis (and, in light of Stimpson's departure, there was no imputation of Stimpson's knowledge to them); and (iii) the fact that, by relying on the opinion of Stimpson, defendant MTF was waiving its attorney-client privilege with Stimpson. ‛[T]he withdrawal of Mr. Stimpson from the firm appears to relieve the imputed conflict driving the disqualification requirement. There is no evidence in this case that Mr. Stimpson provided any information to [plaintiff’s lawyers] concerning the non-infringement opinion prepared for [defendant] MTF. In fact, it appears that [plaintiff’s lawyers] have never met Mr. Stimpson.... Therefore, even if the attorney-client privilege continued to attach to communications related to the non-infringement opinion, there is no indication that any such confidential information was imparted to“ plaintiff’s two longtime lawyers.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice