GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. BabyCenter, L.L.C.
2010 WL 3239436, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17182, 618 F.3d 204 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm has a concurrent conflict of interest if it brings a lawsuit against a corporate affiliate of a current client when the client and its affiliate share substantial operational commonalities and are financially interdependent, effectively making them a single client for disqualification purposes.
Facts:
- The law firm Blank Rome entered into an engagement agreement with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in 2004 for legal services, which included specific conflict waivers related to patent litigation.
- BabyCenter, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of J&J.
- BabyCenter relies extensively on J&J for numerous business services, including accounting, human resources, IT, and, most significantly, legal services from J&J's in-house legal department.
- In 2006, Blank Rome provided privacy-related legal services directly to BabyCenter.
- In August 2006, BabyCenter entered into an E-Commerce Agreement with GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. (GSI), for GSI to operate BabyCenter's online store.
- J&J's legal department participated in the negotiation of the E-Commerce Agreement between BabyCenter and GSI.
- In 2009, BabyCenter closed its online store, leading to a dispute with GSI.
- GSI, represented by its counsel Blank Rome, accused BabyCenter of wrongfully terminating the agreement and initiated a dispute resolution process.
Procedural Posture:
- GSI filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to compel arbitration against BabyCenter.
- BabyCenter filed a cross-motion to disqualify GSI's law firm, Blank Rome, due to a conflict of interest with its parent company, J&J.
- The district court granted BabyCenter's motion and disqualified Blank Rome as GSI's counsel.
- GSI, as the appellant, appealed the district court's disqualification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; BabyCenter is the appellee.
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 a law firm's representation of a client adverse to its current client's wholly-owned subsidiary create a concurrent conflict of interest requiring disqualification when the parent and subsidiary are so operationally intertwined, particularly in their legal services, that they are effectively a single entity for conflict purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Winter, Circuit Judge
Yes, the representation creates a concurrent conflict of interest requiring disqualification. A parent corporation and its subsidiary should be treated as a single entity for conflict purposes when circumstances show they are exceptionally close. The court determined that the substantial operational commonality between J&J and its subsidiary BabyCenter—particularly their shared in-house legal department, common business services, and integrated management—meant they were essentially one client. Therefore, Blank Rome's representation of GSI in a suit against BabyCenter was an act adverse to its current client, J&J, creating a prima facie improper concurrent representation. The court found that the engagement agreement's waivers were narrowly tailored to specific patent litigation matters and did not grant Blank Rome a blanket waiver to sue any J&J affiliate. Interpreting the agreement's general boilerplate language to permit such a conflict would render the specific, negotiated waiver provisions meaningless, violating basic principles of contract construction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'corporate affiliate conflict' doctrine in the Second Circuit, providing a flexible, fact-intensive test rather than a rigid per se rule based on corporate ownership. The court's focus on 'operational commonality,' especially the sharing of in-house legal departments, creates a significant precedent for large law firms that represent clients within complex corporate families. The ruling underscores the critical importance of drafting clear, specific, and comprehensive advance conflict waivers in engagement letters, as generic boilerplate language may be insufficient to waive conflicts with a client's affiliates.
