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

litigationattorneylawyermotionpatent
attorneylawyerdocket

Related Cases

Cheney v. Wells, 23 Misc.3d 161, 877 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28480
View Case »
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40, 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1169, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,618
View Case »
In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893, 56 L.Ed.2d 417
View Case »
General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 1164, 876 P.2d 487, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 63 USLW 2065, 128 Lab.Cas. P 57,741, 9 IER Cases 1089
View Case »
Roberts v. Heim, 123 F.R.D. 614, 57 USLW 2449, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,338, 27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 344
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Oxford Systems, Inc. v. CellPro, Inc., 45 F.Supp.2d 1055

Facts

Becton Dickinson, a client of Perkins Coie, intervened in a securities fraud case where Lyon & Lyon was represented by Perkins. Becton argued that Perkins had a conflict of interest due to its prior representation of Becton in a patent case. The court examined the history of the attorney-client relationship between Becton and Perkins, noting that Becton had relied on Perkins for various legal matters over a long period, leading to Becton's belief that it was still a client at the time Perkins agreed to represent Lyon & Lyon.

Perkins Coie has represented Becton on various matters for thirteen years, and since 1990, Becton has used Perkins Coie exclusively for its legal work in Washington State. See Hallenbeck Decl., docket no. 40, at ¶ 4.

Issue

Whether Perkins Coie should be disqualified from representing Lyon & Lyon due to a conflict of interest arising from its prior representation of Becton Dickinson.

Whether Perkins Coie should be disqualified from representing Lyon & Lyon due to a conflict of interest arising from its prior representation of Becton Dickinson.

Rule

Under Washington Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer cannot represent a client with interests directly adverse to another current client without written consent. Additionally, a lawyer may not represent a client in a substantially related matter if the former client's interests are materially adverse unless the former client consents.

With respect to current clients, the rules provide that a lawyer cannot represent any client with interests directly adverse to the interests of another client unless each client consents in writing after full disclosure. See Rule 1.7. With respect to former clients, the rules provide that a lawyer may not represent a client if he or she is utilizing confidences to the disadvantage of the former client, or the former client's interests are adverse and the matter is substantially related. See RPC 1.9.

Analysis

The court determined that Becton Dickinson had a reasonable belief that it was a current client of Perkins Coie at the time Perkins agreed to represent Lyon & Lyon. This belief was based on the long-standing relationship and the nature of the legal work performed by Perkins for Becton. The court also noted that the matters were substantially related, as the issues in the securities fraud case were intertwined with the prior patent litigation.

Thus each case turns on its facts, and in this case, the facts demonstrate that Becton reasonably believed in April 1998 that it had an ongoing relationship with Perkins. That belief was based on the duration of the attorney-client relationship, Becton's practice of using Perkins exclusively as its local counsel in Washington matters whenever such matters arose, and the fact that Perkins had been actively participating in the Nyland matter within the last year.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Perkins Coie must be disqualified from representing Lyon & Lyon due to the conflict of interest, as Becton Dickinson had not provided written consent for such representation.

The Court concludes that Becton and Perkins had an ongoing attorney-client relationship in April 1998, and therefore pursuant to RPC 1.7 Perkins was prohibited from representing Lyon & Lyon absent Becton's written consent.

Who won?

Becton Dickinson prevailed in the motion to disqualify Perkins Coie because the court found that Perkins had a conflict of interest that violated ethical rules.

Becton asserts that in April 1998, when Perkins began representing Lyon & Lyon, Becton was a current client of Perkins, and therefore Perkins was prohibited from representing Lyon & Lyon in a substantially related matter absent Becton's written consent.

You must be