1. What specific facts indicate the deceitfulness of Vogel, the paralegal?
2. What standard for imputed disqualification did the Brobeck firm want the court to apply? Why did the court apply a more lenient standard?
3. Notice that, even though the court disqualified the Harrison firm from nine asbestos cases, the court approved of screens for paralegals. That having been said, what screening mechanism did the court adopt?
4. Why did the court believe that the Harrison firm was in possession of Brobeck’s confidential client information?
5. How did Harrison’s own conduct contribute to the court’s decision to affirm his firm’s disqualification?

  • CreatedAugust 03, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question