FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY v. FREMONT GENERAL CORPORATION Part II
Where law firm concurrently represented two related entities, each in an entirely separate legal action, but did not represent either entity in a third matter in which one entity sued the other for unjust enrichment, disqualification of firm based on concurrent representation of parties with conflicting interests was not warranted. Where law firm previously represented one of the entities in a legal malpractice action to which the other related entity was not a party, and the entity that firm represented in the legal malpractice action did not show that information firm purportedly gained regarding entity's litigation philosophy and practices was material to unjust enrichment action, disqualification of firm based on prior representation of a party in a substantially related matter was not warranted.
Comments on FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY v. FREMONT GENERAL CORPORATION Part II