You aptly observe;...

"As Silver stated, accidents happen, and things are always dynamic and changing. As more research is done, companies may get added to the list or removed throughout the process."...

That is precisely the reason the RULES against conflict of interest are framed as they are. There is no "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE OR COMMIT CONFLICT OF INTEREST", like "THOU SHALT NOT COMMINGLE CLIENT'S FUNDS WITH YOUR OWN."

The Courts place the onus on the attorneys to make sure there is no conflict of interest, and then the mandatory part of the RULE only requires a written notification of the client of existence of such a conflict, and getting the client's O.K., in writing, to continue with the representaion of that client...

This is a far cry from DM taking on EDIG as a client and then turning around and suing them for something else representing one of the defendant's in the EDIG case. But, if he represents EDIG in a claim against SONY, and he had represented one of the subsidiaries of SONY in the past in a case dealing with Music Piracy, then the RULE is operational and he must get written consent from EDIG to continue with the case against Sony...

Enough said. I trust, as sman998 said DM has learned a lesson from the case he cited, and they are keenly aware of conflict issues, and none of the hypos discussed here shall not be an issue in EDIG representation...

Gil...