in the family? - Association of Corporate Counsel

7. Is Stern & Wright is responsible for a conflict of interest because Legal
Eagles was doing work for Acme and Fontana at the same time?
Model Rule 5.3(b) says that a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer
[i.e., someone not subject to the Model Rules] shall make reasonable efforts to ensure
that this person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. The
fact that the Caribbean company’s simultaneous work for Acme and Fontana was not a conflict
under the ethics rules of the Bristol Isles therefore does not automatically defeat a claim that
there was a conflict. It the ethics rules of the jurisdiction in which the supervising lawyer is
admitted to practice that is relevant, not the country in which the contract lawyer is admitted
to practice. This is consistent with the idea that it is the firm’s lawyers, not the contractor,
who are performing legal services for the client and must abide by their ethical obligations in
doing so.
As with the claim that Stern & Wright is liable for the Caribbean company’ disclosure of
privileged information, the claim that the firm is responsible for the Caribbean company’s
violation of the relevant United States conflict rule will depend on whether the firm was
negligent. A reasonable lawyer would have explicitly described the scope of the United States
conflict rules and would have requested an adequate investigation to determine if the Caribbean
company was performing or had performed any work for Fontana. Stern & Wright also should
have satisfied itself that the Caribbean company had in place an effective system for conducting
a conflicts check before accepting any new work.
Association of Corporate Counsel’s “Ethical Issues for Corporate Counsel”