United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
April 5, 2004.
VOICENET COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.
GERALD J. PAPPERT, et al
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Voicenet Communications, Inc. and a related entity, Omni Telecom,
Inc., have filed a complaint and request for a preliminary injunction
against various defendants, including the Bucks County District Attorney
and two detectives with the Bucks County District Attorney's Office ("the
Bucks County defendants").*fn1 The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated their constitutional rights to free speech and due process of
law. The alleged violations arise out of the execution of a search
warrant on Voicenet's premises and the seizure of certain computer
Ballard Spahr Ingersoll and Andrews, LLP ("Ballard Spahr") entered an
appearance for the Bucks County defendants. The plaintiffs have moved to disqualify Ballard Spahr. They allege that
Voicenet is a current client of Ballard Spahr and that Ballard Spahr may
not represent the Bucks County defendants who are directly adverse to
Voicenet in this litigation. In the alternative, they argue that even if
Voicenet is a former client of Ballard Spahr, the law firm must be
disqualified because this matter is substantially related to the work
done by Ballard Spahr for Voicenet. Ballard Spahr has opposed the motion,
arguing that Voicenet is not a current client of the firm and that the
prior work it did for Voicenet is not substantially related to this
Rule 1.7(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation of that client will be directly
adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the
representation will not adversely affect the
relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
If Voicenet is a current client of Ballard, this rule prohibits Ballard's
representation of the Bucks County defendants. The Court must decide
whether Voicenet is a current client of Ballard. The basis of the motion is that Richard Jaffe, a partner in Ballard
Spahr's Business and Finance Department, had represented Voicenet in
connection with certain financings of Voicenet. Mr. Jaffe first came into
contact with Voicenet in September 2000 when he was a partner at the
Mesirov law firm. In 2000, he represented an individual investor in
Voicenet. He thereafter represented Voicenet in raising capital for a
possible initial public offering ("IPO"). Mr. Jaffe introduced Voicenet
to potential investors and investment bankers.
Sometime between 2000 and April 2002 (the affidavit of Mr. Jaffe is not
precise on this point), Mr. Jaffe left the Mesirov firm and went to
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP. On April 30, 2002, he left
Schnader for the Ballard Spahr firm. Mr. Jaffe was assisted in his
representation of Voicenet by Raymond Walheim, an associate at Schnader
and then at Ballard Spahr.
During the months of June 2002 through August of 2002, Mr. Jaffe billed
two hours for services rendered to Voicenet. Mr. Jaffe sent the last bill
to Voicenet in September 2002 for 30 minutes work on August 15, 2002. No
one at Ballard Spahr billed for services rendered to Voicenet since
August 15, 2002. There was no contact between Mr. Jaffe or Mr. Walheim
with Voicenet between at least December 2002 and March of 2004.
The affidavits submitted by both sides are consistent in describing a
contact between Mr. Jaffe and Voicenet in March 2004. Mr. Jaffe states that a few weeks ago, an investment banker
contacted him to ask if he was aware if Voicenet was interested in trying
another capital venture. Mr. Jaffe stated that he had had no contact with
Voicenet but would call them to see if the investment banker could call
them. Mr. Jaffe then telephoned someone at Voicenet and passed along the
information that an investment banker was interested in speaking with
Voicenet. According to the affidavit from the Voicenet representative,
the investment banker called Voicenet telling them that he would like to
set up a meeting.
Voicenet also submitted to the Court Unanimous Consents in Lieu of the
Annual Meeting of Shareholders and the Board of Directors of Voicenet,
dated December 30, 2002 and December 30, 2003, authorizing the officers
of the corporation to retain the services of three law firms, including
Ballard Spahr "as they deem appropriate."
The Court concludes from a review of all the materials submitted by the
parties in connection with the motion to disqualify that Voicenet is not
a current client of Ballard Spahr. Mr. Jaffe was retained for a specific
transaction on which he worked during the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. He
did only two hours of work for Voicenet after going to Ballard Spahr in
May 2002. There was no contact at all between Mr. Jaffe and Voicenet from
sometime in 2002 until March 2004. It appears that Voicenet ceased being a client of Ballard Spahr in August 2002 when
the last hours were billed to it.
The call in March by Mr. Jaffee to Voicenet does not change that
conclusion. That call may certainly have led to more work for Mr. Jaffe
if Voicenet, after talking with the investment banker, decided to go
forward with a transaction. But the call, itself, did not trigger a new
representation. It was not even initiated by Mr. Jaffe. The investment
banker called him and Mr. Jaffe then called Voicenet. The fact that Mr.
Jaffe did not bill Voicenet for the call supports this conclusion. The
Uniform Consents do not change the result. They simply authorize Voicenet
officers to retain Ballard Spahr, among other law firms, if they deem it
Because the Court finds that Voicenet is a former client of Ballard
Spahr, it must evaluate the plaintiffs' motion under Rule 1.9 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct:
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client
in a matter shall not thereafter:
(a) represent another person in the same or a
substantially related matter in which that person's
interests are materially adverse to the interests of
the former client unless the former client consents
after a full disclosure of the circumstances and
(b) use information relating to the representation
to the disadvantage of the former client except as
Rule 1.6 would permit with respect to a client or when
the information has become generally known. The question that the Court must answer is whether the prior
representation of Voicenet is substantially related to the present case.
The Court finds that it was not. The present case involves civil rights
claims by Voicenet arising out of the seizure by law enforcement of
certain information and equipment relating to Omni Telecom, Inc.'s
Quikvue service. Both Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Walheim have stated in their
declarations that they have no knowledge of the Quikvue service. They
state that at the time they were providing services to Voicenet,
Voicenet's technology was primarily a telephone internet technology
called Voice Over IP. Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Walheim did receive certain
information from the financial work they performed for Voicenet in 2000
and 2001, and that Mr. Jaffe performed in 2002. However, it does appear
and Mr. Jaffe declares that that work is outdated and there is no
relation to the Quikvue service or Voicenet's financial status in 2004.
In addition, counsel has represented that no information regarding
Voicenet has been disclosed to any other attorney at Ballard Spahr. Mr.
Jaffe and Mr. Walheim have been effectively screened from the present
An appropriate order follows. ORDER
AND NOW, this ___ day of April, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs'
oral motion to disqualify counsel made in open Court on March 29, 2004,
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel
(Docket No. 6), Response of Bucks Country Defendants to Plaintiff's
Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Bucks County Defendants, Plaintiff's
Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Disqualify
Defendants' Counsel, and Sur-Reply of Bucks County Defendants to
Plaintiff's Reply to Bucks County Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's
Motion to Disqualify Counsel, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said
motion is DENIED.
AND NOW, this ___ day of ___, 2004, in consideration of the Plaintiff's
Motion to receive Reply under seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion
is granted and PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL with attachments shall be
filed by the Clerk under seal.
MOTION TO FILE PLEADING UNDER SEAL
Plaintiff, Voicenet Communications, Inc., by its undersigned Counsel
and for the reasons that are more fully set forth in Plaintiff's Reply
hereby moves that this Honorable Court direct that Plaintiff's REPLY TO
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL and the attachments thereto, be filed by the Clerk under seal. In
support thereof, plaintiff avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel and the Exhibits thereto contain
confidential proprietary information of Plaintiff.
2. Defendant' Counsel has heretofore disclosed information to the
Defendants and others which Plaintiff claims is confidential.
3. Disclosure of the contents of Plaintiff's Reply and the Exhibits
thereto information to Defendants will substantially prejudice Plaintiff
in this case
4. Disclosure of the proprietary business information of Plaintiff will
prejudice Plaintiff in its ongoing business dealings.
5. This Honorable Court enjoys discretion to direct that a filing be
made under seal, where there is a likelihood that the release of
information contained therein will substantially prejudice a party. Such
is the case here.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court direct that
Plaintiff's REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL and the attachments thereto, be filed by
the Clerk under seal and further that Defendants' Counsel be directed not
to divulge the information set forth in the attachments to any party.