Before a court resolves a dispute over AI’s use of online content, it may have to resolve who can represent one of the parties.
Reddit has asked a U.S. federal judge to disqualify Proskauer Rose from representing Perplexity in their data-scraping litigation. Reddit relies on the firm’s earlier representation of it and an alleged assurance that Proskauer would not represent Perplexity.
Proskauer disputes the conflict allegation and denies making that assurance. The disqualification motion has not been decided.
The dispute brings a familiar professional-responsibility problem into a prominent AI case: how a firm manages obligations associated with an earlier client relationship when accepting a new mandate.
The disagreement concerns both duties and communications
Two issues emerge from the reported positions.
One concerns the significance of Proskauer’s earlier work for Reddit. The other concerns what the firm allegedly said about representing Perplexity.
They should be kept distinct. A court may need to examine the legal consequences of the prior relationship alongside the evidence of communications between the firm and Reddit.
Neither side’s characterization resolves those questions.
For Canadian lawyers, this is a U.S. proceeding rather than a ruling on Canadian conflict rules. Its practical value lies in the concrete governance issues it exposes.
A conflict check needs context
A database can identify that a firm previously acted for an organization. It cannot, by itself, explain the scope of that work, the information obtained or the significance of subsequent communications.
A meaningful review therefore requires more than matching names.
The lawyers assessing a proposed engagement need enough context to understand the earlier mandate and any restrictions or assurances connected to it. That information may be held by people outside the team pursuing the new client.
The management challenge is ensuring that relevant knowledge reaches the decision-maker before the firm commits.
Withdrawal communications can become important evidence
The alleged assurance is a reminder that communications ending a client relationship can later matter as much as those beginning it.
For firm leaders, the practical lesson is to document clearly what was agreed, by whom and in what terms. Ambiguous language can produce sharply different recollections when a commercially important opportunity arises later.
That does not establish that an assurance existed in this case. Proskauer expressly disputes it.
It does show why engagement and withdrawal records should form part of the conflict-review process rather than sit in separate administrative files.
What firms can examine now
A useful internal review would ask whether the firm:
- Records relevant restrictions and assurances centrally.
- Consults lawyers familiar with an earlier mandate.
- Preserves engagement and withdrawal correspondence.
- Escalates disputed or sensitive situations before accepting work.
- Documents the basis for its decision.
These practices help make an assessment reviewable. They also reduce dependence on incomplete institutional memory.
The underlying AI lawsuit and the disqualification motion remain separate disputes. A ruling about counsel’s participation would not determine whether Perplexity’s alleged use of Reddit content was lawful.
A new mandate can begin quickly. The obligations connected to an earlier one require a careful record.
For related analysis, read Jackson Walker Faces Disclosure Questions as Judge Considers Broader Investigation and Westlaw-ROSS AI Copyright Ruling: Why Competition Mattered to the Third Circuit.