When billable work stops, has the lawyer-client relationship ended?
That disputed question features in DeviantArt’s request to disqualify Crowell & Moring from representing photography company Evox in AI copyright litigation.
DeviantArt alleges that Crowell previously advised it and parent company Wix on related matters. Reuters reports that Crowell’s general counsel said the firm had performed no work for the companies since 2024 and had no conflict; DeviantArt disputes that the relationship ended.
No disqualification decision is reported in the reviewed source.
Inactivity and termination are different facts
A pause in instructions can occur for many reasons. Whether it ends a professional relationship requires examination of the relevant circumstances.
For firm management, that makes accurate client-status records important. A database entry describing someone as a former client should reflect an assessment rather than an assumption based solely on the date of the last invoice.
Engagement terms, correspondence and communications about future work can all become relevant to reconstructing the relationship.
The parties’ disagreement here remains unresolved.
Scope matters alongside status
A conflict review must also understand what the earlier work involved.
A broad label such as “commercial advice” may conceal the details necessary to assess a later adverse mandate. Reviewers need enough information to understand the subjects addressed and the confidential information potentially obtained.
That requires consultation with the lawyers familiar with the earlier engagement.
An automated name match can identify a relationship. It cannot complete the analysis.
A separate issue from the copyright merits
The disqualification motion concerns who may act in the proceeding. It does not decide whether the defendants’ alleged use of photographs infringed copyright.
Keeping those disputes separate prevents professional-responsibility allegations from being mistaken for findings about the underlying AI claims.
For Canadian lawyers, this is a U.S. dispute rather than a ruling on Canadian conflict standards.
Practical lessons for firms
Firms can review whether client-status changes are documented, whether relevant restrictions appear in conflict records and whether dormant relationships receive meaningful assessment before adverse work is accepted.
The purpose is to make the decision informed and reviewable.
A quiet file does not necessarily provide a clear answer about the relationship behind it.
Related coverage: Arceus Launches AI-Supported Law Firm With $17 Million in Total Funding.
Sources: Reporting on the contested disqualification motion .