[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

under FDA policy — advice that is germane to issues concerning marketing and advertising
HFCS as natural and whether such claims could be false or misleading. Accordingly, the
similarities of the legal and factual issues of Patton Boggs’ prior representation of Ingredion
put Patton Boggs, now SPB, in a position where confidential information material to its
current representation of the Sugar Plaintiffs was likely imparted to counsel. . . .
Ingredion has established that there is a “substantial relationship” between the prior and
current representations, and the attorneys at Patton Boggs, now SPB, are presumed to
possess confidential information. SPB is thus subject to automatic disqualification from this
action.
. . . [B]ecause Ingredion has met its burden showing that a “substantial relationship”
exists between the two representations, SPB is conclusively presumed to possess confidential
information material to the present action. The “substantial relationship” test ensures that
clients are not forced to reveal the confidences the rule is intended to protect.
The Court finds that SPB is subject to automatic disqualification because it previously
represented Ingredion in matters substantially related to the present action, and SPB is thus
presumed to possess client confidences revealed in the prior representations. Evidence
showing that the Patton Boggs attorney who signed the engagement letters for Ingredion . .
. actually consulted with Sugar Plaintiffs’ counsel and expert witness following the merger
reinforces the Court’s finding.
Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman
250 P.3d 1115 (Cal. 2011)
BAXTER, Justice. . .
In 2004, defendant Attorney Kenneth A. Goldman agreed to represent plaintiff Oasis
West Realty, LLC (Oasis) in its effort to obtain approval of a redevelopment project [The
Hilton project] from the Beverly Hills City Council. Goldman terminated the
representation about two years later. In 2008, Goldman became involved in a campaign to
thwart the same redevelopment project by soliciting signatures on a referendum petition to
overturn the Beverly Hills City Council’s approval of the project. Shortly after the voters
upheld the city council’s approval by a very narrow margin, Oasis filed a complaint for
breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract against Goldman
and his law firm, Reed Smith, LLP. . . .
Oasis has alleged that it hired Goldman “because, among other things, he was an
attorney reputed to be an expert in civic matters and a well-respected, influential leader
who was extremely active in Beverly Hills politics.” Oasis said it believed that “Goldman’s
statements and opinions on City development matters bore significant influence on City
Council members and the local citizenry,” . . . .
During the representation, Goldman became “intimately involved in the formulation of
the plan for Oasis’[s] development of the Property, its overall strategy to secure all necessary
approvals and entitlements from the City and its efforts to obtain public support for the
Project. Mr. Goldman was a key Oasis representative in dealing with Beverly Hills City
337