Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitlitigationattorneylawyercorporationclass action
lawsuitlitigationattorneylawyercorporationclass action

Related Cases

In re International Systems and Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 732, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,036
View Case »
District of Columbia Bar v. Kleindienst, 345 A.2d 146
View Case »
In re Disciplinary Action Against Overboe, 745 N.W.2d 852
View Case »
Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F.Supp. 69
View Case »
Fassihi v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, P.C., 107 Mich.App. 509, 309 N.W.2d 645
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Doe v. A Corp., 709 F.2d 1043

Facts

John Doe was employed in the legal department of A Corporation from 1975 to 1980, where he provided legal advice regarding employee benefits. After resigning, he filed suit for benefits under the corporation's pension and life insurance plans, claiming he was improperly denied benefits and sought to represent a class of employees with similar claims. A Corporation moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that Doe was barred from initiating litigation due to his prior representation of the corporation.

John Doe was employed in the legal department of A Corporation from 1975 to 1980, where he provided legal advice regarding employee benefits. After resigning, he filed suit for benefits under the corporation's pension and life insurance plans, claiming he was improperly denied benefits and sought to represent a class of employees with similar claims.

Issue

Whether the former house counsel, John Doe, could represent a class of employees in a lawsuit against his former employer without violating ethical obligations.

Whether the former house counsel, John Doe, could represent a class of employees in a lawsuit against his former employer without violating ethical obligations.

Rule

A lawyer may be disqualified from representing a party in litigation if the matters in the pending suit are substantially related to matters in which the attorney previously represented the adversary, due to the risk of disclosing confidential information.

A lawyer may be disqualified from representing a party in litigation if the matters in the pending suit are substantially related to matters in which the attorney previously represented the adversary, due to the risk of disclosing confidential information.

Analysis

The court found that Doe's prior representation of A Corporation created an irrebuttable presumption that he would use confidential information to the detriment of the corporation if allowed to represent the class. Although he could pursue his personal claims, his ethical obligations prevented him from acting as a class representative.

The court found that Doe's prior representation of A Corporation created an irrebuttable presumption that he would use confidential information to the detriment of the corporation if allowed to represent the class.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action claims but reversed the dismissal of Doe's personal claims, allowing him to proceed with his individual lawsuit.

The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action claims but reversed the dismissal of Doe's personal claims, allowing him to proceed with his individual lawsuit.

Who won?

A Corporation prevailed in the class action aspect of the case because the court determined that Doe's ethical obligations as a former attorney barred him from representing a class of employees.

A Corporation prevailed in the class action aspect of the case because the court determined that Doe's ethical obligations as a former attorney barred him from representing a class of employees.

You must be