One of the things a client gets when he hires a lawyer is loyalty. Undivided loyalty.
That means the lawyer can’t use things he learns in the course of representing a client against that client in the future while representing someone else.
This principle was reflected in a recent case decided in the Central District for California.
In Cole Asia Bus. Ctr., Inc. v. Manning, a lawyer represented client DebtorWise Foundation in two trademark-related matters: first, in writing a cease-and-desist letter to an alleged infringer, then in a licensing dispute. Thereafter, the lawyer took on a case against DebtorWise arising out of a business dispute.
DebtorWise moved to disqualify the lawyer, arguing that he had learned confidential information about DebtorWise in the course of his representations that he should not be able to use to its detriment, including information about its “business plan, account volume, and litigation strategy.”
The California Rules of Professional Conduct state that a lawyer “shall not, without the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the [lawyer] has obtained confidential information material to the employment.”
The court found the rule prevented the lawyer from taking on the adverse representation and granted DebtorWise’s motion to require him to to withdraw from the case.
The court noted “[t]he purpose of [this] rule is to protect the confidential relationship which exists between attorney and client, a relationship which continues after the formal relationship ends. The fiduciary nature of that relationship requires the application of strict standards. For that reason, a former client may seek to disqualify a former attorney from representing an adverse party.”
Washington has a similar rule.
Hopefully, it gives clients confidence that what they tell their lawyer will never come back to haunt them in a future case.
The case cite is Cole Asia Bus. Ctr., Inc. v. Manning, No. CV 12-00956 DDP CWX, 2013 WL 2445194 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2013).