Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1780547
 


 



Disqualification of Counsel: The Westinghouse Litigation


Anthony D'Amato


Northwestern University - School of Law

March 7, 2011

Chicago Bar Record, Vol. 61, p. 88, 1979
Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 11-35

Abstract:     
The motion to disqualify counsel is becoming increasingly important in pre-trial strategy. Discusses one case arising out of Westinghouse Electric Corporation's alleged breach of long­term uranium supply contracts, in which a disqualification motion was sustained against Westinghouse's counsel, Kirkland & Ellis.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 12

Keywords: Disqualification of Counsel, Chinese Wall Argument, Legal Ethics, Westinghouse v. Rio Algom, Westinghouse v. Getty, Westinghouse v. Kerr-McGee, Kirkland & Ellis

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: March 8, 2011  

Suggested Citation

D'Amato, Anthony, Disqualification of Counsel: The Westinghouse Litigation (March 7, 2011). Chicago Bar Record, Vol. 61, p. 88, 1979; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 11-35. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1780547

Contact Information

Anthony D'Amato (Contact Author)
Northwestern University - School of Law ( email )
375 E. Chicago Ave
Unit 1505
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 261
Downloads: 22

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.360 seconds