From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Murray v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
583 F.3d 173 (2009)
The law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (Debevoise) represented Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) (defendant) during a month-long demutualization process (converting from mutually-owned by its policyholders to owned by stockholders) completed April 7, 2000. Eleven days later, MetLife’s policyholders (plaintiffs) brought a class action asserting that Metlife violated federal securities law by misrepresenting or omitting certain information from materials provided to policyholders during the demutualization. Debevoise acted as MetLife’s lead counsel in that class action. Seven years into litigation, MetLife requested a protective order to prevent discovery of communications between MetLife and its in-house and outside counsel based on attorney-client privilege. Reasoning that the policyholders were Debevoise’s clients during the demutualization because the policyholders owned the mutual company, the trial court denied the protective order. On July 31, 2009—more than nine years into the litigation and just five weeks before trial—the policyholders moved to disqualify Debevoise on the ground that Debevoise could not change sides and be adverse to the policyholders in the class action after representing those policyholders as owners of the mutual company during the demutualization. MetLife raised three arguments in response. First, the doctrine of laches foreclosed the policyholders’ raising the issue nine years into litigation and just before trial. Second, MetLife argued that a mutual company’s policyholders are not its corporate counsel’s clients. Third, MetLife asserted that the policyholders had moved to disqualify Debevoise for improper tactical purposes. Again reasoning that Debevoise was counsel to the policyholders as well as MetLife during the demutualization, the trial court disqualified Debevoise. MetLife appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 557,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.