Lawyer disqualification issues normally do not end up in the Wall Street Journal (even on its law blog), but then again, most disqualification proceedings do not arise out of a $230,000,000 Russian tax fraud, with the movant being an outspoken hedge-fund manager partly responsible for congressional legislation (the Magnitsky Act).  The hedge-fund manager, William Browder, claims that attorney John Moscow of BakerHostetler formerly represented Mr. Browder in a related matter, and now Moscow is serving “abusive” subpoenas on Browder on behalf of Moscow’s new client, against whom Browder will serve as a government witness.  In crafting and serving the subpoenas, moreover, Browder claims that Moscow used Browder’s confidential information.  If true (i.e., if Moscow is using Browder’s confidential information or otherwise acting adversely to Browder in a substantially related matter), Moscow and his firm would indeed have a conflict of interest.  (See, e.g., Model Rule 1.9.)

The Wall Street Journal previously covered the controversy here and here.  And just today, the Journal reported that the district judge denied Browder’s disqualification motion.  (BakerHostetler was not so fortunate in another case last year, when it was disqualified in light of a concurrent client conflict of interest.)