Stratagem Development Corp. v. Heron International N.V. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A law firm attempted to sue the parent company of a current client. The court disqualified the firm, holding it could not cure the conflict by dropping the existing client “like a hot potato” once the conflict became apparent.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a firm cannot unilaterally convert a current client into a former client to avoid the strict per se rule against concurrent adverse representation. The duty of undivided loyalty requires disqualification absent informed consent from both clients.
Stratagem Development Corp. v. Heron International N.V. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The law firm Epstein Becker & Green (“Epstein Becker”) represented Stratagem Development Corp. (“Stratagem”) in its real estate dealings. Simultaneously, the firm represented Fidelity Services Corporation (“FSC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Heron Properties, Inc. (“Heron”), in unrelated labor matters. A dispute arose between Stratagem and Heron, leading Heron to terminate their joint venture agreement. Epstein Becker then informed FSC of its intent to sue Heron on behalf of Stratagem. In a letter, the firm stated, “Unless we hear otherwise from you, we plan to resign as Heron’s counsel… on the day we file Stratagem’s complaint.” FSC’s parent, Heron, objected, citing a conflict of interest. Epstein Becker then sent a letter stating it was withdrawing as counsel for FSC. Subsequently, Epstein Becker filed a complaint against Heron on behalf of Stratagem. On the same day, an Epstein Becker attorney sent a letter to the Second Circuit identifying the firm as counsel for FSC in the ongoing labor matter. The firm did not transfer the FSC case files to new counsel until after the complaint against Heron was filed. Heron moved to disqualify Epstein Becker.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a law firm avoid disqualification for a breach of the duty of loyalty by withdrawing from its representation of a current client in order to pursue litigation against that client’s parent company on behalf of another client?
Yes, the firm must be disqualified. The court held that Epstein Becker Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a law firm avoid disqualification for a breach of the duty of loyalty by withdrawing from its representation of a current client in order to pursue litigation against that client’s parent company on behalf of another client?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the 'hot potato' rule, establishing that a firm's duty Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut e
Legal Rule
When a law firm engages in representation adverse to a current client, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pa
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the duty of undivided loyalty under Canon Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A law firm violates its duty of loyalty by suing the