# Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 29, 1992 · 529 Pa. 241

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718268

## Case

- **Full name:** MARITRANS GP INC., Maritrans Partners L.P. and Maritrans Operating Partners L.P., Appellants, v. PEPPER, HAMILTON & SCHEETZ and J. Anthony Messina, Jr., Esquire, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 29, 1992
- **Citations:** 529 Pa. 241; 602 A.2d 1277; 1992 Pa. LEXIS 36
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 164 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718268

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 imp…
- 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 atto…
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718268. Public record. Not legal advice.