Interesting Prospective Waiver Case Hearing

There's a good article about a hearing involving enforceability of a prospective waiver with a sophisticated client, the ruling on which is expected any time. The language used is pretty typical, and so the results could reach far.

Comments

[John Steele]

So, the argument is that a large corporation (1) represented by a competent lawyer, and (2) with, say, scores of corporate affiliates, can sign an agreement limiting the ACR to a relationship running between a lawyer and one affiliate, and then can turn around and claim that the duty of loyalty in fact runs to the scores of corporate affiliates?

Leaving aside (compelling) issues of equitable estoppel, does the court understand what that ruling would mean for would-be litigants who want lawyers to take on corporate America? What a blow to access to justice. What a blow to an independent bar. And for what purpose? So that large corporations can lock up the best legal talent? To protect large corporations that already have massive legal staffs and are quite competent, thank you very much, to protect their own interests?

[David Hricik]

I'm just reporting the facts, sir! :-)

[John Steele]

That wasn't directed at you, David! Anyway, I guess I've left a hint about how I view that matter.

[JFM]

Do you really think the pool of talent is that small?

[David Hricik]

It's not a question of "pool of talent": if that were the case, the former client rule wouldn't differ from the current client rule. The net effect will be less client choice of firms despite knowing waivers, if the plaintiff prevails, imho. That's good for no one.