Clark Capital Management Group, Inc. v. Annuity Investors Life Insurance
149 F. Supp. 2d 193, 2001 WL 767606, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9313 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An implied attorney-client relationship is not formed during preliminary conversations between a prospective client's counsel and an attorney if the prospective client's counsel did not have a reasonable belief that the attorney was acting on the client's behalf, particularly when counsel knew that prerequisites to representation, such as a conflict check, had not been completed.
Facts:
- In the fall of 2000, Donald E. Frechette, counsel for Annuity Investors Life Insurance Co. ('Annuity'), telephoned Thomas S. Biemer, a partner at the law firm Dilworth Paxson LLP ('Dilworth'), to inquire about Dilworth's interest and availability to serve as co-counsel in an ongoing trademark infringement case brought by Clark Capital Management Group ('Clark Capital').
- Frechette and Biemer spoke by telephone on two or three occasions between October and November 2000.
- During these calls, Frechette asserts he disclosed confidential information regarding Annuity's defenses, case strategy, and perception of the case's strengths and weaknesses.
- Biemer recalled discussing the general nature of the case but had no recollection of receiving specific confidential information about defense strategy.
- Frechette requested that Biemer send him informational materials about the Dilworth firm.
- Annuity never made a formal offer to retain Biemer or the Dilworth firm, and Dilworth never consented to representation.
- On June 11, 2001, Stephen L. Friedman, another attorney at Dilworth, entered an appearance to represent Clark Capital in the same trademark infringement lawsuit against Annuity.
Procedural Posture:
- Clark Capital Management Group filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement against Annuity Investors Life Insurance Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Stephen L. Friedman, an attorney with the firm Dilworth Paxson LLP, entered an appearance to act as co-counsel for the plaintiff, Clark Capital.
- Defendant Annuity filed a motion in the district court seeking to disqualify Friedman and his entire firm, Dilworth Paxson LLP, from the case.
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 implied attorney-client relationship form, thereby disqualifying a law firm from representing an opposing party, when a company's existing counsel holds preliminary telephone conversations with an attorney at that firm to inquire about retention, even if some case details are discussed, but no offer of retention is made and no conflict check has been performed?
Opinions:
Majority - Anita B. Brody, District Judge
No. An implied attorney-client relationship did not form between Annuity and Dilworth. To establish an implied attorney-client relationship, a party must show they submitted confidential information to an attorney with a reasonable belief that the attorney was acting on their behalf. Here, it was unreasonable for Frechette, as experienced counsel for Annuity, to believe that Biemer was acting as Annuity’s attorney during their preliminary conversations. The discussions were exploratory, no offer of retention was made, and Frechette admitted he knew Biemer would have to perform a conflict check before undertaking representation. Since a conflict check had not been run, Frechette could not have reasonably believed an attorney-client relationship had been formed. Therefore, Annuity is not a 'former client' under the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Dilworth is not disqualified from representing Clark Capital.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for forming an implied attorney-client relationship, particularly between sophisticated parties like attorneys exploring co-counsel arrangements. It establishes that a subjective belief is insufficient; the belief that an attorney-client relationship exists must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The ruling underscores that an experienced attorney is expected to know that procedural prerequisites like conflict checks must be completed before a formal relationship is established, making it difficult for them to later claim a disqualifying conflict arose from preliminary 'beauty contest' discussions. The court's preference for screening a single attorney rather than disqualifying an entire firm also highlights a judicial trend toward using less drastic remedies to resolve potential conflicts.
