DUE SEPT 26 RCC WORKSHEET ZOOM CONFERENCE Chapters 11 and 12-1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Riverside City College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by PrivateIron10246
RIVERSIDE CITY COLLEGE
Dr. James
30 points + 5 additional points if uploaded Monday night by 11:55 p.m.
otherwise 30 points if uploaded on Tuesday night by 11:55 pm
Chapters 11 and 12 Ethical Rules.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/168/1195/2293690/
1. Case Name and court:
Richards v. Jain, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (W.D. Wash. 2001)
2. Facts
Because Hagens Berman, the plaintiff's attorney, had access to attorney-
client private communications (documents), Jain and Infospace wants to
disqualify him or her. Which is undeniable When Hagens Berman asked
plaintiff John Richards ("Richards") for any papers substantiating his legal
claims, Richards ("Richards") responded by giving Hagens Berman access
to a Jaz disk containing protected documents from the middle to end of
August 2000. When Hagens Berman got the Disk, it was aware that it
included a copy of every e-mail that was kept on Richards' computer's hard
disk. This disk included close to 100,000 emails sent and received by
Infospace workers.
3.
Issue(s) in case
This lawsuit hinges on whether the attorney knew Hagens Berman LLP
possessed these communications and why they didn't reveal anything
sooner. "Nonlawyers and lawyers are bound by the same ethical duties."
1) Hagens Berman had access to extensive privileged material for eleven
months; 2) it reviewed almost a thousand privileged documents; 3) a
portion of those documents was relevant to the instant case; 4) it did not
1
adequately notify opposing counsel of its possession of the material; 5)
Richards supplied the privileged information in violation of the NDA; and 6)
plaintiffs would not be severely prejudiced by the loss of their counsel.
4. Defense position.
Hagens Berman paralegal Mr. Haegele read Defendants' attorney-client
privilege materials. Mr. Haegele studied protected material without
stopping or informing the privilege holder. Mr. Haegele reviewed the
"thousands of documents" from the initial search then rescanned the Disk
months later. The argument is whether the Court should separate this case
because the paralegal was unethical, not an attorney. Hagens Berman
wants this Court to subject its paralegal to a lesser ethical standard than its
lawyers. This reasoning is lacking and violates the Washington Rules of
Professional Conduct, the Court rules.
5. Court’s rationale-
Rule 5.3(c) applies where an attorney would have known of the activity but
for recklessness or other acts other than inadvertence.[4]
After obtaining the Disk and discovering that it included all of Richards's
hard drive's emails, Hagens Berman had constructive information that it
contained privileged email. After reviewing the papers, Haegele picked
"relevant" ones for the lawyers. Haegele "knew" certain items were
privileged. The failure to prohibit the examination of privileged material or
repair the impact of the review by removing Mr. Haegele from the case
violates RPC 5.3(c) and holds Mr. Berman and Mr. Matt accountable for his
actions. That action and Mr. Haegele's knowledge of sensitive information
are imputed to Hagens Berman. According to RPC 5.3(c), Mr. Berman and
Mr. Matt are responsible for the Disk review's ethical breach.
6.
Conclusion of case
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to
Disqualify, docket no. 46.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ZILLY, District Judge.
2
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Disqualify,
docket no. 46. The Court heard oral argument on October 4 and took the
matter under advisement. The Court having reviewed the briefs of the
parties and considered the argument of counsel now GRANTS
Defendants' motion. The law firm of Hagens Berman LLP is hereby
disqualified from further representation of Plaintiffs in this case.
7. Discuss which chapter(s) does this case relate and why?
Chapter 12 on “Ethics” pertaining to Lawyers and Non-Lawyers.
8. EXTRA CREDIT (5 points) - Does this case give you comfort in the law
process or does it cause you to be alarmed?
Discuss.
It's good to see that some individuals still value and uphold our liberties.
Our private information is being disseminated across the judicial system
without our awareness, even if we are unaware of it.
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help