|
Clients regularly ask us whether we have “screened for conflicts” on new matters we undertake. That questions stems from a lawyer’s ethical obligation to make sure that neither he nor his firm undertakes to give legal advice to opposing parties in a business transaction or a case. It can also extend to representing opposing interests in a public or regulatory matter.
As a technology vendor, Catalyst does not follow standard conflicts protocol. To the contrary, Catalyst is regularly asked to provide central repository services to opposing parties or to members of a joint defense group. In many cases, members of joint defense groups begin the action in concert, but develop opposing positions at a later time. On criminal cases, defendants regularly take pleas and testify against other members of the defense group.
In addition, Catalyst often is not at liberty to disclose the fact that it has undertaken a repository engagement. A request for conflicts information necessarily requires disclosure of another engagement even by the declaration that there is, or is not, a conflict.
Thus, except in extraordinary circumstances, Catalyst does not undertake conflict checks but instead proceeds as if every matter it undertakes is confidential. Client information regarding one matter is not shared with other clients under any circumstances. Data is maintained separately in separate sites. Shared data is also protected in joint repositories through private fields, sub-collections, private and shared folders, and locked-down auditing rights.
Click here to read our Policy on conflicts of Interest.
|
