Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:28:50 +0100

From: Andrew Dickinson

Subject: Lawyer's No Conflict Rules

From an English perspective, see the House of Lords decision in Hilton v. Barker Booth & Eastwood (a sorry tale) and, in a takeover context, the decision of Mr Justice Lawrence Collins and the Court of Appeal in Marks & Spencer v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (for the CA decision, see here; the more detailed decision of Collins J, upheld on appeal, is reported at [2004] 1 WLR 2331). I note that the professional conduct rules for solicitors' conflicts have recently been revised - see here.

Kind regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Lionel Smith
Sent: 20 June 2006 14:55
Subject: Re: ODG: RE: Lawyer's No Conflict Rules

Perhaps I am misguided but to me this is clearly a question of fiduciary law! Whether fiduciary obligations belong to contract or tort, or perhaps a bit of both, is a whole other can of worms.

We had a big case in Canada that reviewed the whole question of intra-firm conflicts of duty and duty, though not in a takeover context: Macdonald Estate v. Martin [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235. This decision, which examined the solutions in a range of common law jurisdictions, invited the Canadian Bar Association to reformulate the ethical standards governing "Chinese walls," which it did.

In Chapters Inc. v. Davies, Ward & Beck L.L.P. (2001), 52 O.R. (3d) 566 (C.A.), a takeover target applied successfully to have a large firm disqualified from acting on behalf the bidder due to earlier work that the firm had done for a predecessor of the target. I read in the newspaper a few years ago (Globe and Mail, 4 December 2000, page B1) that a large national corporation made a point of having work done for it by all the big law firms, so that if it was ever a takeover target, none of them could act for the bidder.

The decision of the Privy Council in Kelly v Cooper [1993] AC 205 found an implicit waiver by the client of a real estate agent of the normal prophylactic rule against conflicts of duty and duty; many would say they were a little too quick to find this waiver. It is a fun case to read however, involving Ross Perot and the lifestyles of the rich and famous in Bermuda.

*******

This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person.

For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office.

This firm is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the Register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity in the UK, which is broadly the advising on, selling and administration of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints or redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by The Law Society. The Register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website at www.fsa.gov.uk/register.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>