Law firm's violation of Model Rule 1.7 does not warrant disqualification
Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 07-333-SLR, Civ. No. 07-348-SLR, Civ. No. 07-409-SLR, Civ. No.07-765-SLR, August 25, 2009.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to disqualify law firm is denied.
Defendant moves to disqualify law firm from representing plaintiffs. Defendant is a global pharmaceutical company with multiple divisions and subsidiaries among which many have similar names. The law firm has handled several matters for defendant and its companies. Throughout those representations it has not always been clear which entity was included in the representation nor does it appear that the law firm differentiated between the entities. Currently, the firm is involved in a representation of one of those entities. When the law firm informed the defendant that it planned to represent plaintiffs in the instant suits, defendant objected. Nonetheless, the firm has sought permission to appear pro hac vice as counsel for the plaintiffs. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 83.6(6) attorneys admitted to practice before the Court are governed by the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Model Rules”). Noting that the firm’s representation of plaintiffs in the instant suits violates Model Rule 1.7, the Court concludes that disqualification is not the appropriate remedy under the circumstances and is decided on a case by case basis in the Third Circuit. In this case, the firm’s representations are unrelated and being done out of different offices in different cities. There is also an ethical wall in place between the two matters. Moreover, the firm’s failure to comply with Model Rule 1.7 is, in part, due to defendant’s conduct. The use of its confusing naming convention and failure to identify to the firm which entity is involved created significant confusion for the firm as to which entity or entities it was representing. Defendant should not now benefit from such obfuscatory conduct.
