Risk Update

Disqualification News — Under-researched Oil DQ Bid, Class Action & Divorce Matters

Posted Dan Bressler

“Shell Unit’s Failed Atty DQ Bid Faulted For Lack Of Research” —

  • “U.S. District Judge Nancy F. Atlas declined to sanction oil field technology company Enventure Global Technology Inc., a Royal Dutch Shell PLC subsidiary, for its bid to disqualify the attorneys for oil field equipment provider Weatherford International Ltd., but she did note that the sanctions bid was ‘not unfounded.'”
  • “‘It appears that plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to disqualify opposing counsel was the result of a lack of sufficient factual and legal research and analysis, apparently due in part to the difficulty of obtaining complete records about an alleged attorney-client relationship many years ago,’ Judge Atlas said.”
  • “In October, Enventure filed a bid, under seal, to disqualify Weatherford’s current in-house counsel, William Imwalle, claiming he previously served as counsel for Enventure. By extension, it argued that Weatherford’s other in-house counsel, Brian Welborn, and outside counsel Heim Payne & Chorush LLP should be disqualified as well.”
  • “Enventure was created out of a joint venture between Shell Technology Venture Inc. and Halliburton Energy Services in July 1998. Imwalle served as legal counsel to Halliburton from July 1994 to January 2014 and, while there, occasionally interacted with Enventure in connection with various intellectual property matters.”
  • “‘Enventure had its own in-house attorneys during this time, and Mr. Imwalle never signed an engagement letter or other representation agreement with Enventure,’ Judge Atlas said Friday. ‘Mr. Imwalle was not involved in the prosecution of any of the patents that Enventure asserts against Weatherford in this case.'”
  • “Imwalle says his interaction with Enventure was “infrequent and limited,” which Judge Atlas said was backed up by exhibits submitted by Enventure itself, which show that he interacted with the company once every few years.”
  • “Enventure’s claims that Imwalle “directed” the company in its patent prosecution is ‘directly contradicted by the record evidence,’ Judge Atlas found, noting that disqualification of Imwalle is ‘in no way warranted.'”

And here’s the latest from the eagle-eyed Bill Freivogel:

  • “Cortez v. LandCare USA, LLC, No B298044 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Unpub. Dec. 10, 2020). This is a class action against LandCare by employees for under-compensation. The case contains two separate conflict issues unrelated to class nature of case.
    • In the first, a lawyer from Law Firm 1 representing the LandCare claimed Law Firm 1 represented five other employees. She later corrected that, saying only that she would arrange to produce them for depositions. The trial court disqualified the Law Firm 1. In this unpublished opinion the appellate court reversed holding that the Law Firm 1 had, in fact, not represented the five employees, notwithstanding the partner’s earlier misstatement that it had.
    • The second issue relates to Law Firm 2, which showed up representing two of the aforementioned five employees. Defendant LandCare is paying Law Firm 2’s fees. Law Firm 2 had earlier represented LandCare on other matters. Law Firm 2 obtained the two client’s written consent to this arrangement. Nevertheless, the trial court disqualified Law Firm 2. In this opinion, the appellate court reversed. The court said the compensation arrangement and the earlier representation of LandCare were not enough to constitute a disqualifying conflict. The court was particularly moved by the potential harm to the two employees if Law Firm 2 were disqualified.”
  • “Van Ryn v. Goland, No. 530037 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t Dec. 3, 2020). In this divorce-related case H and W are contesting how H’s pension should be divided.
    • W’s lawyer had drafted an earlier settlement agreement on that point. It now appears that the agreement was somewhat ambiguous, resulting in this disagreement. H moved to disqualify W’s lawyer because the lawyer may be liable to W for malpractice, depending upon how the court finally rules on division of the pension.
    • The trial court denied the motion to disqualify. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed, finding that the possibility of the lawyer’s liability to W is, at this point, ‘entirely conjectural.'”