Skip to content

January 22, 2018

1

Federal Court Decision Highlights Importance of Engagement Agreements

by contributor
People holding up signs with question marks
A recent disqualification decision by the federal district court in Spokane highlights the importance of engagement agreements in defining who is — and who is not — the client.

People holding up signs with question marksA recent disqualification decision by the federal district court in Spokane highlights the importance of engagement agreements in defining who is — and who is not — the client. In Cox v. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., 2017 WL 4640452 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2017) (unpublished), the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to void a non-compete. Shortly after the defendants answered, the plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify defense counsel. Although the motion had several facets — all of which were denied — one is particularly instructive.

One of the plaintiffs argued that he was a former client of the defense firm on a substantially related matter and contended that the law firm had a conflict under the former-client conflict rule — RPC 1.9. The court noted that although the particular plaintiff had interfaced with the law firm, the contact was as a representative for a corporation (which was not a plaintiff) rather than as a client in his own right. The court concluded that no attorney-client relationship had ever existed between the plaintiff and the law firm on the matter involved. Accordingly, the court found that no disqualifying former conflict existed as a matter of law.

In doing so, the court relied primarily on a written engagement agreement that identified the corporation (and not the individual) as the client in the matter at issue. The court also determined that no evidence had been presented that this relationship had been expanded to include the individual.

Engagement agreements serve many important roles, but one of the most significant is defining the client for a particular matter. As Cox illustrates, carefully defining the client in an engagement agreement (and then proceeding consistent with that agreement) can effectively shield a firm from later conflict assertions by others who were merely in the background of the matter involved.

Read more from Case Law Updates

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments