INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HOWARD S. LEVIN and LEVIN COMPUTER CORPORATION, Respondents, and HONORABLE H. CURTIS MEANOR, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, Nominal Respondent; HOWARD S. LEVIN and LEVIN COMPUTER CORPORATION, Cross-Appellants, No. 78-1113, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Appellant, Nos. 78-1065 & 78-1074, CARPENTER, BENNETT & MORRISSEY, Cross-Appellant, No. 78-1114, 579 F.2d 271

Summary

Petitioner moved for an order disqualifying cross-appellant, counsel for respondents, from further participation in a private antitrust suit on the ground that cross-appellant had represented both respondents and petitioner during the pendency of the action in the district court in violation of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105. The district court disqualified cross-appellant from further representation of respondents, but permitted cross-appellant to turn over its past work product to respondents' substitute counsel. On appeal, the court held that the findings supported the district court's conclusion that cross-appellant was obligated to disclose fully to petitioner the facts of its representation of respondents and obtain its consent. As petitioner's informed consent to the concurrent representation by cross-appellant of it and respondents had not been obtained, cross-appellant had violated DR 5-105. The court stated that the turnover provisions of the district ...