Maritrans sued their former attorneys, Pepper and Messina, for breach of fiduciary duty and damages. Pepper and Messina represented Maritrans' competitors in labor negotiations, during which the competitors sought wage and benefit reductions to compete more effectively with Maritrans. The trial court granted Maritrans' request for preliminary injunctive relief against Pepper and Messina, acknowledging the special relationship between attorney and client and the substantial relationship between Pepper and Messina's former representation of Maritrans and their current representation of Maritrans' competitors. The Superior Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction against Pepper. The Supreme Court corrected this error and held that an attorney's conflict of interest in representing a subsequent client whose interests are materially adverse to a prior client in a substantially related matter is actionable in Pennsylvania. Violating ethical rules does not necessarily mean that conduct is actionable for damages or injunctive relief. Attorneys who violate their fiduciary duties to clients by having conflicting interests may be ordered by courts to forfeit or return paid fees, regardless of potential disciplinary action. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision and reinstated the preliminary injunction to prevent further harm to Maritrans and restore the parties to their previous state.

The dissenting opinion in a legal case argues that the majority overlooked the Chinese wall defense, which allows for the isolation of attorneys within the same firm who represent clients with competing interests. This defense requires a "substantial relationship test" to be met and a rebuttable presumption arises that confidences were shared. The attorney and firm must provide sufficient evidence to establish the probable effectiveness of the wall. Factors to be considered include the substantiality of the relationship between the attorney and former client, the time lapse between matters in dispute, the size of the firm and number of disqualified attorneys, the nature of the disqualified attorney's involvement, and the timing of the wall. These guidelines are outlined in ABA Opinion 342. The majority's conclusion that the fiduciary duty was breached is unreasonable and ignores significant case law in this area.

Justice Flaherty disagrees with the majority opinion that there was a violation of confidentiality in the case because Maritrans gave consent. However, Justice Flaherty thinks that the "Chinese wall" defense used in the case has problems and needs to be looked at more closely by the courts.