Lexplug logoLexplug

Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
708 F.2d 1263 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A law firm is prohibited from representing an adversary of a former client if the subject matter of the two representations is substantially related. When the firm itself switches sides, the presumption that client confidences were shared among the firm's lawyers is irrebuttable, and the firm will be disqualified regardless of any internal screening mechanisms (i.e., a "Chinese wall").


Facts:

  • John Malee was an executive and 10% shareholder at NPD, Inc., a market research corporation.
  • NPD's other owners decided to grant Malee an additional 10% of the company's stock as compensation for his contributions.
  • Malee, at the direction of NPD's owners, hired Richard Fine, a partner at the law firm Schwartz & Freeman, to structure the stock transaction in the most cost-effective way for everyone.
  • To value the stock for the transaction, NPD provided Schwartz & Freeman with confidential information about its financial condition, sales trends, and management.
  • Schwartz & Freeman billed NPD for its legal services, and NPD paid the bill.
  • In May 1977, Malee left NPD. His wife, who also worked for NPD, left at the same time and incorporated Analytica, Inc. to compete directly with NPD.
  • In October 1977, Analytica retained Schwartz & Freeman to represent it in legal matters against NPD.

Procedural Posture:

  • On behalf of Analytica, Schwartz & Freeman filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against NPD.
  • After the FTC declined to act, Analytica, represented by Schwartz & Freeman and co-counsel Pressman and Hartunian, filed an antitrust lawsuit against NPD in federal district court.
  • NPD filed a motion in the district court to disqualify both law firms based on a conflict of interest arising from Schwartz & Freeman's prior representation of NPD.
  • After evidentiary hearings, the district court judge granted the motion, disqualifying both firms, and ordered Schwartz & Freeman to pay NPD's legal fees related to the motion.
  • Schwartz & Freeman and Pressman and Hartunian appealed the district court's orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the substantial relationship test require the disqualification of a law firm that represents a client in a matter substantially related to a matter in which the firm previously represented the client's current adversary?


Opinions:

Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.

Yes. The substantial relationship test requires disqualification of a law firm when it represents an adversary to a former client in a matter substantially related to the prior representation. The court found that Schwartz & Freeman's prior work on NPD's stock transfer was substantially related to its current representation of Analytica in an antitrust suit against NPD. During the stock transaction, the firm received confidential data from NPD regarding its profitability, sales, and market strength, all of which are germane to the antitrust claims. Because the firm itself 'switched sides,' the court applies an irrebuttable presumption that these confidences were shared within the firm. The exception that allows for a rebuttable presumption through screening mechanisms like a 'Chinese wall' applies only when a lawyer changes firms, not when the entire firm represents an adversary of a former client. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether confidences were actually shared; the appearance of impropriety and the risk to client trust mandate disqualification.


Dissenting - Coffey, Circuit Judge.

No. The substantial relationship test should not automatically require disqualification; rather, the presumption of shared confidences within a firm should be rebuttable. The majority's decision reverts to an outdated, harsh rule and ignores this court's recent precedent in cases like LaSalle National Bank, Freeman, and Novo, which allow a firm to rebut the presumption of shared confidences. The distinction between a firm 'switching sides' and an individual lawyer changing firms is illogical and creates an unnecessary conflict in the court's jurisprudence. Modern legal practice in large, specialized firms makes it unrealistic to assume every lawyer knows every client's secrets. The district court erred by refusing to even consider Schwartz & Freeman's evidence that no confidences were actually shared, thereby denying the firm due process and unfairly tarnishing its professional reputation.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a strict, bright-line rule for attorney disqualification within the Seventh Circuit when a law firm as a whole engages in representation adverse to a former client. It creates a clear distinction between a firm 'switching sides' (where an irrebuttable presumption of shared confidences applies) and a lawyer moving to a new firm (where the presumption may be rebutted by a 'Chinese wall'). The ruling prioritizes the protection of client confidences and the 'appearance of impropriety' over a client's right to choose their counsel and the practical realities of modern law firm structures. The sharp dissent highlights the ongoing national debate over whether these traditional, rigid disqualification rules are still appropriate for large, departmentalized law firms.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc. (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"