Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Watkins v. Trans Union, LLC
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided August 22, 2017No. 17-1142Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSykes, Circuit Judge
I agree with my colleagues that this disqualification dispute is governed by Rule 1.9 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, not the old common-law standard derived from Canons 4 and 9 of the ABA’s Model Code of Professional Responsibility and elaborated in LaSalle National Bank v. Lake County, 703 F.2d 252 (7th Cir. 1983), and Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc., 708 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1983). I therefore join Parts I, IIA, and IIC of the majority, opinion. In these sections my colleagues explain the background of this case and the evolution .of the legal standard. I agree and have…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Analytica, Incorporated v. Npd Research, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Appeals of Schwartz & Freeman and Pressman and Hartunian ChtdCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Lasalle National Bank and Lake Properties Venture v. County of Lake and the Village of GrayslakeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- XYZ, D.O. v. Robin Sykes and Thomas Williams, and ABC HospitalIndiana Court of Appeals · 2014