Ok quick substantive question from legal prof. I dunno if you guys talk about corps and stuff as much as us, cuz its more Steele's background.
Anywayy here is hte fact pattern
“I’m in trial representing a British citizen, Nehal Mehta, in a civil fraud suit against Monterey Finance (MF). Yesterday morning, MF’s lawyer, Jo Solti, said that MF had just been acquired by Monterey Bank (MB) and that MB should be substituted in as the defendant. Well, MB either was or is a client! They haven’t sent us work in a while, but have sent us many projects over the years
So first you have to figure out if its a former or current client i guess. which is more just factual analysis on termination and all that. There doens't seem to be a conclusive termination, it wasn't on one matter, MB liley reasonably believed they were still a client. The only argument that its not, i guess is the time past, but I doubt the court buys that. so its probalby a current client.
So if its a current client usually, obviously you can't be directly adverse, here suing a current client, without reasonably believing that you are capable of representation and getting ICCW from both NM and MB, or mabye if there is an advanced waiver with MB it would be ok. so bascially the law firm is screwed here.
If its a former client its a little easier, since it has to be same or substantially related, and since they just bought them out it would be unlikely. If it was same or sub related they woudl need the ICCW again. The firm coudl also get screwed if they have any information about MB that would be disadvantageous to MB.
Questoin 1: is for imputation, it has to be a laterals right? so thats not applicable here (edited for my original screwed up statement)
And question 2, this result seems extremely screwed up. If you could just conflict out a lawyer through buying out a company, you would think it create some type of exception? I remember talking about something with that in class, but i dont see where it is in the model rules or anything.
So im guessing im missing some type of rule haha.
Edit: Ok got the answer from teh prof so you can ignore this now.
if anyone is readin this, #1 is only for laterals, and #2 is jurisdictional, some say yes some say no