Manzano v. Bowen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “[b]ecause Walston necessarily knew that information given to [the attorneys] would certainly be conveyed to their primary clients in view of the realignment agreement, the substantial relationship test is inapposite”
• “secondary” client did not have any expectation that his communication would be kept secret from “primary” clients
• test not applied where there was attorney-client relationship, but client knew all information he disclosed would be conveyed to other parties
• Canon 5 is inapposite when the parties are aware of their mutual relationship and sophisticated enough to anticipate the potential conflicts arising therefrom

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).