attorney is insufficient to show ‘good cause,’ then reliance on another defendant and his attorney is equally .insufficient.” Owens contends the master’s reliance on Pilgrim was an error of law because Pilgrim was vacated by our supreme court. We agree with Owens that Pilgrim was vacated on April 25, 2003. See Bage, LLC v. Se. Roofing Co. of Spartanburg, Inc., 383 S.C. 489, 490, 681 S.E.2d 867 (2009) (noting the parties in Pilgrim settled while the petition for certiorari was pending before our supreme court; therefore, the decision was vacated). However, the master’s reliance on Pilgrim was not an error justifying reversal because the proposition for which Pilgrim stands was not overturned by the court and remains the law of this state. See Sundown, 383 S.C. at 609, 681 S.E.2d at 889 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we find
holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability 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 the law is clear that an attorney or insurance companys misconduct is imputable to the client holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case