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

plaintiffdefendantlitigationattorneyappealmotionpatenttrademarkcorporationplaintiff's attorney
plaintiffdefendantattorneyappealmotioncorporationappellantappellee

Related Cases

United States v. Yielding, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678588
View Case »
Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171
View Case »
Perlman v. U.S., 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950
View Case »
Parnell v. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 110 F.3d 1077, 65 USLW 2682
View Case »
Fiandaca v. Cunningham, 827 F.2d 825, 56 USLW 2190, 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 858
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 567 F.2d 713

Facts

The Lockwood law firm had represented the plaintiff, Whiting Corporation, for nearly 20 years and had also represented Hendrickson Manufacturing Company, a nonparty related to the defendants through stock ownership, for over 40 years in unrelated patent and trademark matters. The defendants argued that this dual representation created a conflict of interest, particularly as Hendrickson owned 20% of the defendant White Machinery Corporation's stock. However, Hendrickson did not object to the Lockwood firm's representation of Whiting in the current litigation.

The Lockwood law firm has represented the plaintiff for over twenty years in connection with various products unrelated to tandem axle suspensions and continues to so represent it in the present law suit.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiff's attorneys?

The issue presented for review in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion and improperly denied defendants-appellants' motion to disqualify plaintiff-appellee's attorneys.

Rule

The district court possesses broad discretion in determining whether disqualification of counsel is required, and the scope of review is limited to whether there was an abuse of that discretion.

In so deciding, we are guided by a decision of this court that the district court 'possesses broad discretion in determining whether disqualification is required in a particular case,' and that the scope of our review is accordingly limited.

Analysis

The court found that the Lockwood law firm had maintained ethical standards and had fully informed both Whiting and Hendrickson of its dual representation. Since neither client objected to the representation, and given the unrelated nature of the matters involved, the court concluded that there was no conflict of interest that warranted disqualification. The long-standing relationship between the firm and the plaintiff, along with the lack of any wrongdoing, supported the decision to deny the motion.

Since we agree with the district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, which is hereinafter set forth, we adopt it as our own.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the motion to disqualify the Lockwood firm from representing either Whiting or Hendrickson.

Accordingly, the district court's order, which denied the motion to disqualify the Lockwood firm from representing plaintiff or Hendrickson, and the order denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby affirmed.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Whiting Corporation, prevailed because the court found no conflict of interest that would necessitate disqualification of its counsel.

Defendants' motion to disqualify the law firm of Lockwood, Dewey, Zickert & Alex from representing either the plaintiff or Hendrickson Manufacturing Company, which is related to the defendant corporation, presents an extremely sensitive nevertheless vital question relating to the integrity of the legal profession and scrupulous administration of justice.

You must be