United States v. ASCAP
129 F. Supp. 2d 327 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney for an unincorporated association does not automatically represent each individual member in a way that creates a conflict of interest when the attorney represents the association in an adversarial proceeding against that member. The existence of an attorney-client relationship is determined by a multi-factor test analyzing the member's reasonable expectations, not their mere status as a member.
Facts:
- Richard Lewis Warren, a writer of musical scores, became a member of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) in 1983.
- A long-standing dispute arose between Warren and ASCAP over royalty payments for his musical compositions used in television shows, with Warren claiming he was underpaid.
- To obtain financial advances from ASCAP, Warren had previously disclosed confidential personal financial information to ASCAP's attorneys, including his income, debts, and bills.
- Warren sought access to ASCAP's complete membership list and the confidential financial records of other ASCAP members to investigate his claims.
- Warren demanded that ASCAP's in-house and outside counsel recuse themselves from his internal grievance proceedings, arguing they had a conflict of interest because they also represented him as a member of the association.
- Despite ASCAP having a mandatory internal grievance and arbitration procedure, Warren filed multiple lawsuits against ASCAP in California state courts regarding the same disputes.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Lewis Warren filed a formal 'Protest' with ASCAP's internal Board of Review in January 1998 to resolve his royalty dispute.
- The Board of Review conducted a hearing and, on October 18, 1999, issued a decision largely against Warren.
- Warren filed an appeal from the Board's decision, and the matter was referred to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on October 29, 1999.
- Warren refused to proceed with the AAA appeal and instead filed a series of state and federal court actions in California against ASCAP seeking similar relief.
- ASCAP filed the instant motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court with exclusive jurisdiction over the ASCAP consent decree.
- ASCAP's motion sought to enjoin Warren's other lawsuits, declare there was no conflict of interest, limit document production, and compel Warren to exhaust his administrative remedies through the AAA.
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 for an unincorporated association, such as ASCAP, have an automatic conflict of interest when representing the association in an adversarial proceeding against one of its members?
Opinions:
Majority - Conner, J.
No, an attorney for an unincorporated association like ASCAP does not have an automatic conflict of interest when representing the association against one of its members. The court rejected the traditional common law rule that an association's lawyer represents every member. Instead, it adopted a modern, multi-factor analysis based on ethical opinions to determine if an attorney-client relationship exists. The primary consideration is whether the member had a reasonable expectation of individual representation. Here, Warren's expectation was unreasonable because: (1) his disclosure of financial information was to obtain advances, not to seek legal advice; (2) he could not reasonably expect confidentiality from the association when requesting money from it; (3) ASCAP's Articles of Association explicitly state that its counsel represents the 'Society' in all proceedings, which put members on notice; and (4) given ASCAP's size of over 100,000 members, it would defy common sense to assume its counsel represents every member individually. Therefore, no attorney-client relationship was formed, and no conflict of interest existed.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional legal view that an unincorporated association's attorney represents every member by default. By adopting a modern, fact-specific test focused on the member's reasonable expectations, the court aligned the legal standard with contemporary ethical rules for organizational clients. This precedent provides crucial clarity for attorneys representing large associations, trade groups, and unions, establishing that they can defend the organization against an individual member's claim without being automatically disqualified for a conflict of interest. The ruling protects organizations from being functionally paralyzed by internal disputes and clarifies the boundaries of the attorney-client relationship in the associational context.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. ASCAP