In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “the courts have recognized repeatedly that attorneys owe no duty of care to adversaries in litigation or to those with whom their clients deal at arm’s length”
• finding disqualification appropriate 25 where a law firm hired a paralegal that had worked for opposing counsel and learned information from him that, without “question,” was covered by the “attorney-client” privilege
• “To rebut the presumption, the challenged attorney 17 has the burden of showing that the practical effect of formal screening has been 18 achieved.”
• law firm employing paralegal previously employed by opposing law firm is disqualified, absent former employer's consent or an effective screening procedure, where employee had possession of privileged information
• oss of 11 || knowledgeable counsel and the necessity of seeking new counsel are not forms of prejudice that 12 | warrant preventing disqualification of counsel
• “[Nonlawyer] personnel are widely used by lawyers to assist in rendering legal services. Paralegals, investigators, and secretaries must have ready access to client confidences in order to assist their attorney employers.” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).