Legal Opinion
Oyster v. Bell Asbestos Mines
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 19, 1983No. Civ. A. 82-2734PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND. ORDER
TROUTMAN, District Judge.
The Code of Professional Responsibility, adopted in this district by local rule, E. D.Pa.R. 14(IV), recognizes that
[a] lawyer should not use information acquired in the course of representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client.... The obligation of a lawyer to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client continues after the termination of his employment.
Canon 4. See, McMahon v. Seitzinger Bros. Leasing, Inc., 506 F.Supp. 618 (E.D.Pa. 1981). Interpreting this rule, courts have not hesitated to disqualify counsel where the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Paul J. Glick v. White Motor Company v. North American Rockwell Corp., (Third Party Defendant)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,017 Carl R. Duncan, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Gulf Oil Corporation, and United Nuclear CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- Wilson P. Abraham Construction Corporation v. Armco Steel Corporation, the Ceco Corporation, and Laclede Steel CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rogers v. Pittston Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1992
- Reading Anthracite Co. v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Lavenson v. Loomis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1990