Conflicts, Ethics & Information — Prospective Adversity and Public Information, Attorney-Title Insurance Agent Ethics Opinion

David Kluft asks: “Can I be adverse to a prospective client if all the information I received from her was publicly available?” —

• “A Tulsa public bus driver wanted to file a discrimination complaint against the transit authority. She visited an OK law firm and showed them her EEOC right-to-sue letter and the same paperwork she had showed to her employer and filed with the EEOC. The firm declined the case and she sued pro se, also naming her union as a defendant.”
• “When the same firm appeared on behalf of the union defendant, she moved to disqualify the firm pursuant to Rule 1.18 (prospective client conflicts).”
• “The Court denied the motion, finding no conflict. Because the information the firm received from the prospective client was “generally known” already to all parties, the court found it could not possibly be ‘significantly harmful’ under the rule.”
• Decision: here.

“Ethics Opinion 1283: Attorney’s Referrals to Title Abstract Company Owned by Referring Attorney” —

• “An attorney who owns an interest in a title abstract agency that brokers title insurance may not simultaneously (i) represent a client in a real estate transaction and (ii) act as agent for a title insurance underwriter in the same transaction, unless the attorney performs purely ministerial functions for the title agency and does not negotiate on behalf of the underwriter.”
• “Under Rule 1.10(a) (as amended effective January 1, 2025), whether the attorney’s conflict (which is based on a financial interest in the title abstract agency) will be imputed to the whole firm depends on whether there is a ‘significant risk that the representation will be materially limited or that the independent professional judgment of the participating lawyers in the firm will be adversely affected.’”

“EEOC data requests to law firms were not mandatory, agency says in court filing” —

• “A letter to 20 BigLaw firms seeking detailed information about diversity-program applicants and other attorney job seekers constituted ‘informal information gathering’ rather than a mandatory demand, according to a court filing by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
• “Most of the 20 law firms did not provide any information requested by the EEOC, and those that did reply did not include identifying information about any specific individual, according to the July 31 EEOC filing seeking to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the information gathering. Three anonymous law students are the plaintiffs.”
• “The March 17 letters by EEOC acting chair Andrea Lucas expressed concerns about the firms’ diversity hiring practices, saying they may amount to discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
• “The student plaintiffs had alleged the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded sensitive personal information about the law firms’ applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years. The students applied to or worked at one or more of the law firms.”
• “In their Aug. 14 reply to the EEOC’s motion, the student plaintiffs say the EEOC defendants ‘attempt to minimize their conduct—an implicit acknowledgment that they have overstepped.’”
• “According to Law.com, Goodwin Procter ‘is the only law firm known to have submitted voluminous hiring data to the EEOC.’ The firm did not provide applicant names, however.”