McCourt Co., Inc. v. FPC Properties, Inc.

• Citation: 386 Mass. 145,434 N.E.2d 1234
• Parties: . v. FPC PROPERTIES, INC. et al. 1 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk
• Decision Date: 06 May 1982
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 1234

434 N.E.2d 1234

386 Mass. 145

The McCOURT COMPANY, INC. v. FPC PROPERTIES, INC. et al. ¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Jan. 6, 1982.

Decided May 6, 1982.

Michael S. Greco, Boston (Jules I. Krell, Boston, with him), for defendants.

Richard L. Neumeier, Boston (James F. Meehan, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.

Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.

WILKINS, Justice.

A law firm that represents client A in the defense of an action may not, at the same time, be counsel for a plaintiff in an action brought against client A, at least without the consent of both clients. It does not matter that the law firm represents client A as a defendant because it was selected as A's counsel by A's liability insurer. See Opinion 80-10, Opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics of the Massachusetts Bar Association, 66 Mass.L.Rev. 50 (1981). The law firm is attorney for the insured as well as the insurer. See Imperiali v. Pica, 338 Mass. 494, 499, 156 N.E.2d 44 (1959). Nor does it matter that client A is a corporation or that client A consists, collectively, of a parent corporation and various wholly owned subsidiaries. It is also irrelevant that the lawsuits are unrelated in subject matter and that it appears probable that client A will not in fact be prejudiced by the concurrent participation of the law firm in both actions. The undivided loyalty that a lawyer owes to his clients forbids him, without the clients' consent, from acting for client A in one action and at the same time against client A in another. If there are any special circumstances in which an exception to this general rule should be recognized, no such circumstances have been demonstrated here, and we are aware of no case in which such an exception has been recognized and applied.

The provisions of Disciplinary Rules 5-105(B) and 5-105(C), appearing in S.J.C. Rule 3:07, as amended, --- Mass. --- (effective January 1, 1981), explicitly forbid one attorney from acting for a client in the defense of one action and against that same client as counsel in a second action unless each client consents. "A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment ... if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C)." DR 5-105(B). Acting for a client in one action and against the same client in another action constitutes "representing differing interests" within the meaning of DR 5-105(B). "Differing interests" does not mean "conflicting interests." See A. L. Kaufman, Problems in Professional Responsibility at 37 (1976). Rule DR 5-105(C) states that "a lawyer may represent multiple clients if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the possible effect of such representation on the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of each" (emphasis supplied). Even if it is clear that the attorney can adequately represent the interests of each client where he represents differing interests, he may not do so without the consent of each.

This action, brought on behalf of the McCourt Company (McCourt) on April 2, 1981, seeks specific performance of an option agreement and damages against FPC Properties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Co., with respect to certain property in the Fort Point Channel area of Boston. We shall refer to Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Co. and its wholly owned subsidiaries collectively as CC & F. On April 22, 1981, attorneys for the Boston law firm of Parker, Coulter, Daley & White (Parker, Coulter) entered an appearance for McCourt. By an amended complaint, the parent corporation, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Co., was named as a defendant as guarantor of certain obligations of FPC Properties, Inc. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Co. has a substantial interest in the litigation. It is not merely a nominal party.

In May, 1981, counsel for the defendants moved to disqualify Parker, Coulter from representing McCourt on the ground that Parker, Coulter had represented CC & F as defense counsel in numerous personal injury cases throughout the Commonwealth and that Parker, Coulter continued to so represent CC & F. Parker, Coulter and CC & F have agreed that at all material times Parker, Coulter has represented CC & F in the defense of personal injury actions, and that Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance Company, insurer for CC & F, selected Parker, Coulter to represent CC & F. Four such tort actions were pending on October 26, 1981, one of which CC & F's insurer apparently referred to Parker, Coulter after this action was commenced.

In opposition to the motion to disqualify it, Parker, Coulter argued that disqualification is not required in every simultaneous representation case. It argued that, in this case, there is no actual or apparent conflict of loyalties or obligations; that it has been entrusted with no confidences or secrets that could be used against CC & F; and that it is unlikely that any adverse effect on its independent judgment on behalf of CC & F would result from its adversary posture toward CC & F in this action. We assume, although the record does not show it, that McCourt has consented to both (1) Parker, Coulter's representation of it in an action against another client of Parker, Coulter (CC & F) and (2) Parker, Coulter's representation of CC & F in a personal injury action referred to Parker, Coulter after this action was commenced.

The Superior Court judge who heard the motion essentially accepted this argument and denied the motion to disqualify Parker, Coulter. He concluded that the facts warranted an exception to the general rule because (1) Parker, Coulter's independent professional judgment in its representation of CC & F would not be adversely affected; (2) Parker, Coulter was not representing differing interests (which he defined as "conflicting, inconsistent, diverse or otherwise discordant"); and (3) CC & F had not shown that Parker, Coulter would not represent CC & F properly. We transferred CC & F's appeal here on our own motion. ² For reasons we have already stated, the standards and burden of proof applied by the judge were not the appropriate ones. The motion to disqualify Parker, Coulter should have been allowed.

In other jurisdictions where the propriety of simultaneous representation of a client in one action and of his opponent in another action, involving an unrelated subject, has been considered, courts have viewed DR 5-105, and the attorney's ethical obligations, as we have stated them. See International Business Machs. Corp. v. Levin, 579 F.2d 271, 280 (3rd Cir. 1978) ("We think, however, that it is likely that some 'adverse effect' on an attorney's exercise of his independent judgment on behalf of a client may result from the attorney's adversary posture toward that client in another legal matter"); Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 232-233 (2d Cir. 1977); Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384, 1386 (2d Cir. 1976) ("Under the Code (of Professional Responsibility), the lawyer who would sue his own client, asserting in justification the lack of 'substantial relationship' between the litigation and the work he has undertaken to perform for that client, is leaning on a slender reed indeed. Putting it as mildly as we can, we think it would be questionable conduct for an attorney to participate in any lawsuit against his own client without the knowledge and consent of all concerned"); Pennwalt Corp. v. Plough, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 264, 271 (D.Del.1980); Jeffry v. Pounds, 67 Cal.App.3d 6, 10-12, 136 Cal.Rptr. 373 (1977); Grievance Comm. of the Bar of Hartford County v. Rottner, 152 Conn. 59, 65, 203 A.2d 82 (1964). See also Note, Developments in the Law: Conflicts of Interest in the Legal Profession, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1244, 1293-1294, 1302-1303 (1981).

Although Parker, Coulter argues that opinions elsewhere are not apt in this case and that some leave room in their language for an exception to the general rule, its basic argument is that this court should fashion an exception to the general rule where a commercial corporation is involved. ³ No other court has recognized such an exception. There does not appear to be any tendency in favor of such an exception. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Proposed Final Draft, 1981) advanced by the so called Kutak Commission make no distinction between clients who are natural persons and those that are corporations. See Rule 1.7, set forth in the margin. ⁴ The Kutak Commission's comment on Rule 1.7 includes statements that are wholly consistent with our view of DR 5-105(B) and DR 5-105(C). ⁵

Parker, Coulter points to language appearing in Opinion No. 75-7 at 7-8 (March 13, 1975), issued by the Committee on Professional Ethics of the Massachusetts Bar Association. That opinion, which is quoted in relevant part in the margin, ⁶ recognized that a lawyer should not take a case against a present client unless the client consents, at least where the client is an individual person. The committee expressed concern that, where a client is a large corporation, the corporation may distribute its legal business with the view to barring any local attorney from handling cases against the corporation. However, the ...