of both AMTC and DSC will not violate Michigan Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. The situation would be the same if the shoe were on the other foot. If the Wolf interests controlled AMTC and attorneys of Wolfs choice represented it, there is little chance that Wolf would be impleaded in the lawsuit, although DSC likely would find itself a party. DSC may then claim a conflict of interest if the lawyer Wolf selected would not bring Wolf into the case. No matter which entity controls AMTC, the likelihood of finding counsel that would be “neutral” would be quite remote. It is important to note that Wolfs claim of conflict of interest is not based on Clark Hill’s possession of confidential information, see Barkley v. City of Detroit, 204 Mich.App. 194, 204, 514 N.W.2d 242, 246 (1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing General Elec. Co. v. Valeron Corp.,
holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client