...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. One argument was preserved, while another was raised only later. The parti...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The disputed action was partly authorized but exceeded an important limita...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The facts are close, and both sides can cite a rule that appears favorable...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. One side relies on notice and practical reliance; the other side points to...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. A party relied on common practice, but the record includes facts suggestin...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The parties disagree about the legal effect of those facts. How is the cou...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The facts support the doctrine in part, but a timing problem may limit the...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The decision maker must choose between a categorical shortcut and a fact-s...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. Another actor changed position after relying on the relevant statement, do...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The moving party relies on the parties' conduct and the practical conseque...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. A party invokes an equitable or discretionary remedy after contributing to...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The record contains both written proof and disputed oral testimony. The pa...
...ested transaction. A lawyer learned confidential information from one client and then considered a related representation adverse to that client. The requested remedy would protect one party but impose a substantial burd...
The parties dispute the legal effect of a contested transaction. One material fact supports relief while another triggers a limitation under the governing rule. One fact supports relief and another undercuts it, so th...
The parties dispute the legal effect of a contested transaction. The legally significant act occurred after warnings, partial performance, and a documented objection. The chronology includes warnings, partial performa...
...ner. A nearby accounting firm lost only the chance to finish work for clients that evening and claims lost profits from delayed billing. Neither plaintiff suffered personal injury or property damage apart from spoiled fo...
Citations: Restatement negligence duty principles
...How should the court resolve the discovery dispute? Discuss attorney-client privilege, ordinary and opinion work product, substantial need and undue hardship, and the consequen...
Citations: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), Fed. R. Evid. 502, Hickman v. Taylor, Upjohn Co. v. United States
...How should the court resolve the discovery dispute? Discuss attorney-client privilege, ordinary and opinion work product, substantial need and undue hardship, and the consequen...
Citations: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), Fed. R. Evid. 502, Hickman v. Taylor, Upjohn Co. v. United States
USABarPrep Coach