Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurants, Inc.
590 F.2d 168 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's ethical duty of loyalty prevents them from representing a client against a former client in a matter that is substantially related to the prior representation, even if the prior representation was a joint one where no evidentiary confidences could exist between the co-clients.
Facts:
- The Brennan family owned and operated a series of restaurant corporations.
- Attorney Edward F. Wegmann was hired as general counsel to represent all of the Brennan family's corporate entities jointly, with his fees paid pro rata by all of them.
- As part of this joint representation, Wegmann prosecuted and secured federal service mark registrations for "Brennan's" and "Breakfast at Brennan's" in the name of one corporation, Brennan's, Inc.
- A dispute later arose within the family, resulting in a 1974 settlement that divided the corporations' stock between two opposing family groups.
- Following the split, one family group gained 100% ownership of Brennan's, Inc. (the plaintiff), while the other group gained ownership of the other restaurant corporations (the defendants).
- Wegmann chose to continue representing the defendant group and severed his professional relationship with the plaintiff, Brennan's, Inc.
- A dispute arose over the use of the service marks, leading Brennan's, Inc. to sue the other corporations for trademark infringement.
- Wegmann appeared as counsel for the defendants in the trademark infringement lawsuit initiated by his former client, Brennan's, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- Brennan's, Inc. filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement and unfair competition against other Brennan family corporations and individuals in U.S. District Court.
- The plaintiff, Brennan's Inc., filed a motion in the district court to disqualify the defendants' attorneys, Edward Wegmann and his co-counsel Arnold Sprung, on the grounds of a conflict of interest.
- The district court granted the plaintiff's motion and issued an order disqualifying both Wegmann and Sprung from representing the defendants.
- The defendants appealed the district court's disqualification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 an attorney's prior joint representation of multiple clients, who are now adverse parties, prevent that attorney from representing one of the former clients against another in a lawsuit substantially related to the subject matter of the joint representation?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, Circuit Judge
Yes. An attorney is disqualified from representing a client against a former client when the current litigation is substantially related to the prior representation, regardless of whether that prior representation was joint. The ethical duty to preserve client confidences and avoid the appearance of impropriety is broader than the attorney-client evidentiary privilege. While the evidentiary privilege may not apply between former joint clients, the attorney's ethical obligation not to use information acquired during the representation to the disadvantage of a former client remains. A client would feel wronged and public confidence in the legal system would be undermined if an attorney were permitted to switch sides in the same matter. Therefore, the 'substantial relationship' test applies, and since the current trademark litigation is substantially related to Wegmann's prior work registering those same marks for the plaintiff, his disqualification is affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'substantial relationship' test for attorney disqualification applies with full force even in cases of prior joint representation. The court establishes a crucial distinction between the narrow, evidentiary attorney-client privilege (which is waived between joint clients) and the broader, ethical duty of loyalty. By prioritizing the ethical duty, the ruling reinforces the principle that an attorney cannot use their unique position and knowledge gained from a client relationship to later harm that same client in a related matter. This precedent strengthens conflict-of-interest rules, ensuring that a lawyer's duty of loyalty survives the termination of a joint client relationship and protects the integrity of legal representation.
