St. Mary's University School of Law
In-house counsel wear different hats, and are often involved in business decisions regarding products, marketing, and other strategic issues. It was in this context that courts began to adopt protective orders that precluded in-house counsel who provided their clients advice with “competitive decision-making” from having access to information from a competitor disclosed in discovery. Prosecution bars present numerous issues for courts and counsel. It may be that because of prosecution counsel’s knowledge of the technology that her service as trial counsel would lead to cost savings and other benefits to her client. However, due to the myriad problems that arise from having litigation counsel also engage in other activities, she may be wrong for the part. Only through careful analysis of the policies involved, and careful drafting of any protective orders can courts, clients, and counsel be sure of their casting decisions.
Is Litigation Counsel Who Also Engages in Competitive Decision-Making Wrong for the Part?,
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol4/iss1/4