A. V. B. 726 A.2d 924 (1999) CASE BRIEF

A. V. B.

726 A.2d 924 (1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This appeal presents the issue whether a law firm may disclose confidential information of one co-client to another co-client.

FACTS: A law firm, Hill Wallack, jointly represented the husband and wife in drafting wills in which they devised their respective estates to each other. The husband and wife each signed a letter captioned 'Waiver of Conflict of Interest.' The letter recited that the effect of a testamentary transfer by one spouse to the other would permit the transferee to dispose of the property as he or she desired. The firm's letter also explained that information provided by one spouse could become available to the other. The letter did not contain an express waiver of the confidentiality of any information. Each spouse consented to and waived any conflicts arising from the firm's joint representation. A conflict was alleged to have never been discovered because a clerk misspelled the clients' surname. The devises created the possibility that the other spouse's issue, whether legitimate or illegitimate, ultimately would acquire the decedent's property. Hill Wallack and the wife did not know that the husband had fathered an illegitimate child. Before the execution of the wills, the child's mother retained Hill Wallack to institute this paternity action against the husband. The firm's computer check did not reveal the conflict of interest inherent in its representation of the mother against the husband because of the misspelled name. After the mother filed the paternity action, the husband and wife executed their wills at the Hill Wallack office. On learning of the conflict, the firm withdrew from representation of the mother in the paternity action. Now, the firm wishes to disclose to the wife the fact that the husband has an illegitimate child. The husband joined the firm as a third party defendant. The husband requested restraints against Hill Wallack to prevent the firm from disclosing to his wife the existence of the child. The court denied the requested restraints. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded 'for the entry of an order imposing preliminary restraints and for further consideration.' Hill Wallack filed a motion to the present court seeking leave to appeal, to present oral argument, and to accelerate the appeal.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner