following exerpts from McKESSON case can say it all re conflict of interest.
The legal ethics codes in both Pennsylvania and Georgia, she wrote, “indicate that a lawyer cannot represent a client if the representation involves a current conflict of interest and that a lawyer may represent such a client only after each affected client gives informed consent.” McKesson Information Solutions v. Duane Morris, No 2006CV121110.
Manning, the McKesson’s lawyer, said, “This is something these large multi-jurisdictional firms will have to take into consideration from now on.” He said that his own 165-lawyer firm, while small compared to 600-plus-lawyer Duane Morris, has a multi-state practice and “would never use such a waiver. We have a very intense conflict of interest policy here.”
The starting point for analysis is that, as explained in Comment 8 to Georgia Rule of
Professional Conduct 1.7 (Conflict of Interest), “a lawyer may not act as an advocate
against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if the other matter is
totally unrelated.” In its August 8, 2006 letter, Duane Morris took the position that this
rule did not apply because (1) the corporate defendant in the arbitration, McKesson
Information Solutions LLC, was not its “client” and (2) even if the firm was acting as an
advocate against its client, the client had already provided consent in the May 30, 2006
engagement letter.
However, in
her November 7, 2007 Order Judge Moore held that even though these three
corporations “are separate and distinct legal entities for contract and liability purposes
... they are a single legal entity for purposes of conflict analysis.
