Tag Archives: rule 1.9

Motion to Disqualify Granted Under Rule 1.9

A recent decision of the Delaware Superior Court featured an unusual ruling in Delaware: A motion to disqualify counsel was granted based on a conflict of interest under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, relating to prior representation of a client. Why the Decision is Notable: Although the facts in the 21-page decision styled Sun Life … Continue Reading

District Court Disqualifies Firm Due to Client Representation of Over 15 Years Ago

We have written frequently on these pages about decisions that have addressed potential conflicts of interest in the litigation context, both real and imagined, in the state and federal courts. See, e.g., cases and articles on these pages here. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently disqualified counsel based on a finding of a … Continue Reading

Chancery Rules on Motion to Disqualify and Motion to Revoke Pro Hac Vice Admission; Addresses Legal Ethics Violations; Requires Disclosure of Potential Conflicts in Future Pro Hac Vice Motions

Manning v. Vellardita, C.A. No. 6812-VCG (Del. Ch. March 28, 2012), is an important decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery on legal ethics as applied to non-Delaware attorneys who appear before the Court pro hac vice. Issues Addressed: Whether lack of complete candor to the Court in a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice … Continue Reading

Chancery Denies Motion to Disqualify Cravath Firm in Airgas/Air Products Battle

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc., No. 5249 (Del. Ch., March 5, 2010), transcript of ruling from the bench available here. For anyone who wants to know the latest iteration of law from the Delaware Court of Chancery on motions seeking to disqualify litigation counsel based on alleged conflicts of interest, this short ruling … Continue Reading

Delaware Chancery Court Rules That Wachtell Firm Not Disqualified Due to Prior Representation of Dow, From Suing Dow for Rohm and Haas

The Delaware Chancery Court ruled today that it would deny a motion to disqualify the Wachtell Lipton firm from representing Rohm and Haas in its pending suit against Dow Chemical despite the prior representation of Dow by Wachtell.  Rohm and Haas Co. v.  Dow Chemical Co., (Del. Ch., Feb. 12, 2009), read opinion here. The … Continue Reading
LexBlog