recognizing “the common-law foundation for the principle that an attorney’s representation of a subsequent client whose interests are materially adverse to a former client in a matter substantially related to matters in which he represented the former client constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest actionable at law”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing “the common-law foundation for the principle that an attorney’s representation of a subsequent client whose interests are materially adverse to a former client in a matter substantially related to matters in which he represented the former client constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest actionable at law”
- describing the fiduciary duty owed by attorneys to their clients and stating that “attorneys are bound ... to perform their fiduciary duties properly. Failure to so perform gives rise to a cause of action ... [and] ... such duty demands undivided loyalty and prohibits the attorney from engaging in conflicts of interest, and breach of such duty is actionable.”
- stating that attorneys may be civilly liable for engaging in conduct, such as conflicts of interest, that violates their fiduciary duties to their clients
- noting that, in reviewing a lower court’s reversal of a preliminary injunction order, the facts are "taken in a light most favorable to ... the winner at the trial court level”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I join the dissenting opinion authored by Mr. Chief Justice Nix inasmuch as the record discloses consent was given by Maritrans to the arrangement and no actual breach of confidentiality is present, thus the remedy sought in this case is not warranted. The so-called “Chinese wall” defense, however, is fraught with problems, and, I strongly believe, should be scrutinized closely by the courts.