The Benefits Of Joint Representation

It is common in product liability litigation for the defendant company’s outside legal counsel to represent both employees and former employees of the company in deposition. In the absence of a claim of criminal conduct, which is rarely the case in civil tort litigation, there is generally no conflict of interest in having outside counsel represent both the company and its former employees, particularly where both parties have given their informed consent to be jointly represented. Therefore, it was peculiar for the issue to have been raised in a contact lens products case in Illinois.

In Kallal v. Ciba Vision Corp., (1:09-cv-03346), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer rejected an effort by plaintiff to disqualify Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, counsel for Ciba Vision Corporation. In ruling against plaintiff, it was reported in Law360 that Judge Pallmeyer advised the parties before ruling, “I don’t see a basis for why Ciba’s lawyers should be disqualified.” At issue was defense counsel’s appearance at the subpoenaed depositions of Dr. Scott Robirds, a former global head of clinical and regulatory affairs for Ciba, and William Schaeffer, a former director of global operations.

In denying plaintiff’s disqualification motion, the court agreed with the argument of defense counsel Catherine E. James that no conflict between Ciba and its former employees existed and that no ethical violation had been committed, which is a necessary perquisite for a disqualification motions to succeed.

In its opposition to plaintiff’s motion, Ciba recognized that the corporation and its individual employees admittedly may not have identical interests. Individuals are necessarily interested in their individual reputations, while a corporation is interested in its organizational reputation. However, Ciba argued that these different interests were hardly the basis for a conflict of interest. Citing Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a), which is modeled after the ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct, Ciba argued that a conflict exists where the parties’ interests are “directly adverse” to each other, which was not the case here.

It is not altogether clear why the court did not award Ciba the sanctions it had requested for having to respond to a frivolous motion. However, there is no question that plaintiff’s chief motivation for filing the motion was to attempt to communicate informally with unrepresented former employees to advance their litigation interests. As such, the disqualification motion was a mere subterfuge. 

There are many good reasons for a single law firm to represent both the company and its employees, both present and former. Dual representation reduces legal fees and prevents duplicative preparation and litigation costs. Moreover, dual representation provides for litigation strategies that would not otherwise be available.

As one commentator, Janet A. Savage, noted in the employment law context, an attorney is able to plan and execute a joint defense, as well as present a united front to the jury. Moreover, “dual representation offers logistical advantages. It facilitates common access to all necessary facts and maintains contact between the defendant employee and the defendant employer,” according to Savage. Of course, potential conflicts of interest must be carefully analyzed in every case.

Rule 26 Modifications To Limit Inquiries To Experts

To  make expert depositions more efficient, the U.S. Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has proposed that lawyers no longer be permitted to interrogate opposing experts about their communications with the lawyers who retained them.  Under the proposed rule changes, draft reports will be subject to work product exemption and will not be discoverable.  As Jeffrey Greenbaum, a partner at Sills Cummis & Gross, P.C. in Newark and an officer of the ABA Section of Litigation, which recommended that the rule be changed, advised Law360, "There is interplay between attorneys and experts in terms of strategy that takes place."  Therefore, prohibiting discovery about "who said what to whom" will allow depositions to focus on the expert’s analysis of the case.  At the end of the day, jurors care about issues of bias, but could not care less about who said what to whom.  Some trial lawyers are concerned that the new rule will give license to "hired guns" who do the bidding of the lawyer who retained them.  However, the view shared by most is that interrogating an expert about his conversations with counsel and prior report drafts is a big waste of time.  Nevertheless, some lawyers value the opportunity to fully inquire of an expert witness his or her connection to counsel and are concerned the new rule will chip away at that inquiry.