Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 77-1643
| Decision Date | 07 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1643,77-1643 |
| Parties | WHITING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WHITE MACHINERY CORPORATION and Eugene B. White, Jr., Defendants and Counter-Appellants, v. WHITING CORPORATION, W. A. Morey and Thomas L. Hammond, Counter-Defendants- Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Charles F. Pigott, Jr., George H. Gerstman, Chicago, Ill., for defendants and counter-appellants.
Fred S. Lockwood, John L. Alex, Stanley A. Walton, III, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CASTLE, Senior Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Judge *, and PELL, Circuit Judge.
The issue presented for review in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion and improperly denied defendants-appellants' motion to disqualify plaintiff-appellee's attorneys.
In August 1976, defendant moved for an order to disqualify the law firm of Lockwood, Dewey, Zickert & Alex from representing either the plaintiff or, alternatively, from representing a non-party, The Hendrickson Manufacturing Company (Hendrickson), during the pendency of the litigation. The Lockwood firm had represented plaintiff for nearly 20 years, but had never represented the defendants. Hendrickson Manufacturing owns over 20 percent of the outstanding shares of White Machinery Corporation and by agreement, 40 percent of the board of directors of the Corporation are designated by Hendrickson. Hendrickson has been represented by the Lockwood firm since the 1940's in patent and trademark matters, which are wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the case on appeal. Hendrickson made no objection to the Lockwood firm's continuing representation of plaintiff in this case. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order of April After considering the briefs of the parties and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion for disqualification of the attorneys involved and that the court's action did not constitute an abuse of its discretion. In so deciding, we are guided by a decision of this court that the district court "possesses broad discretion in determining whether disqualification is required in a particular case," and that the scope of our review is accordingly limited. Schloetter v. Railoc of Indiana, Inc., 546 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1976). In view of this disposition of the case, we assume without deciding that defendants have standing to challenge the alleged dual representation of the attorneys concerned.
21, 1977, the district court denied the defendants' motion insofar as it sought to have the Lockwood firm disassociate itself during the pendency of the litigation from representing either plaintiff or Hendrickson. The order, however, directed the Lockwood firm to disassociate and refrain from representing and/or advising Hendrickson in connection with any proceedings relating to the subject matter of the litigation or related products during the pendency of the case. A motion for reconsideration was denied on May 20, 1977.
Since we agree with the district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, which is hereinafter set forth, we adopt it as our own. Accordingly, the district court's order, which denied the motion to disqualify the Lockwood firm from representing plaintiff or Hendrickson, and the order denying the motion for reconsideration are hereby affirmed.
Inasmuch as the district court's order is unpublished, a copy thereof is attached to this opinion as an appendix.
v.
Defendants' motion to disqualify the law firm of Lockwood, Dewey, Zickert & Alex from representing either the plaintiff or Hendrickson Manufacturing Company, which is related to the defendant corporation, presents an extremely sensitive nevertheless vital question relating to the integrity of the legal profession and scrupulous administration of justice. In resolving this issue, I have been guided by the awareness of the delicate balance which must be maintained between the right of an individual to retain counsel of his free choice and the necessity that the court uphold the ethical standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Plaintiff's complaint, filed in January, 1973, alleged among others violations of the patent laws, the Lanham Act, and the specific contractual agreements between the parties, as well as acts of unfair competition and acts in violation of the defendants' fiduciary duties to the plaintiff. The case relates to rail car moving vehicles.
The facts giving rise to the pending matter can be briefly summarized. The Lockwood law firm has represented the plaintiff for over twenty years in connection with various products unrelated to tandem axle suspensions and continues to so represent it in the present law suit. Hendrickson has been Lockwood's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., Inc.
...importance, which will not be disturbed unless a specifically identifiable impropriety has occurred. See also Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 567 F.2d 713 (7th Cir. 1977) (no disqualification). A disqualification order discredits the bar generally and the individual attorneys partic......
-
Melamed v. ITT Continental Baking Co.
...interest of the trust. That there has been full disclosure weighs heavily against disqualification. See Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 567 F.2d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 1977); Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., supra, 528 F.2d at 1386. Further Laub exercised an important public right in r......
-
Brooks v. Farm Fresh, Inc.
...court has broad discretion in determining whether disqualification of counsel is required in a particular case. Whiting Corp. v. White Mach. Co., 567 F.2d 713, 715 (7th Cir.1977); Schloetter v. Railoc of Indiana, Inc., 546 F.2d 706, 710 (7th Cir.1976). A court may require an attorney to wit......
-
Wellman v. Willis
...other canons between a client's right to counsel of his choice and the maintenance of professional standards. Whiting Corp. v. White Mach. Corp., 567 F.2d 713, 715 (7th Cir.1977). Interstate Properties v. Pyramid Co. of Utica, 547 F.Supp. 178, 183 (S.D.N.Y.1982). If Canon 9 is the only disq......
-
Everybody's Doing It-but Who Should Be? Standing to Make a Disqualification Motion Based on an Attorney's Representation of a Client With Interests Adverse to Those of a Former Client
...portions of the Code. D. Mellinkoff, Lawyers and the System of Justice 637-38 (1976). 2. See, e.g., Whiting Corp. v. White Mach. Corp., 567 F.2d 713 (7th Cir. 1977); Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 563 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1977); Black v. Missouri, 492 F. Supp. 848 (......