Triple Threat. Rizio Liberty Lipinsky: Consumer, Victim and Employee Attorneys Unite to Create Modern, Statewide Consumer Law... The Value of a STRONG NARRATIVE: A Huge Win for a Respected Physician's Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud and... Law Firm Business Development: “Plans Are Useless, but Planning Is Indispensable…”: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is... 3 Digital Marketing Tips for Lawyers Seeking Traumatic Brain Injury Cases Online: One of the greatest professional concerns facing personal injury lawyers today is an... Choosing the Right Content for Your Law Firm Newsletter: Many of the law firms we talk to do a great job of maintaining contact information for... Asking “What Makes You Stay?” How “Stay Interviews” Can Improve Employee Retention and Productivity: Hiring interviews and exit interviews are a very common, if not completely unavoidable,... The Golden Rules: A Primer on California’s New Professional Responsibility Rules: California overhauled its Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 1, 2018. This... Imputed Disqualification: Challenges of Suing Former Clients: The case of RehabCare Group East, Inc. v. Village Health Care Management, LLC... Community News – January 2019: Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that Orange County attorney Tony Carucci has... Personal Injury 2.0 RMD Attorneys’ High Tech Law Practice: After only three years in business, RMD Law has established itself as a ground-breaking...
Executive Presentations-468x60-1

Imputed Disqualification: Challenges of Suing Former Clients

The case of RehabCare Group East, Inc. v. Village Health Care Management, LLC demonstrates the importance of thorough and vigorous conflict of interest checks by attorneys to avoid representation overlap. This case illustrated the dangers of suing a former client and led a U.S. district court to disqualify the law firm that had been representing a plaintiff because the firm’s partners had previously represented one of the defendants. Nothing was able to overturn the ruling as neither the partner’s retirement nor screening could not save the representation overlap. A plaintiff suing multiple defendants is what initiated the case due to the alleging breach of contract.

Defendant Disqualifies Plaintiff’s Law Firm

The defendant in the case recognized that its former law firm was the same firm now representing the party suing them. It filed a motion for imputed disqualification on the grounds of representation overlap between the plaintiffs. The defendant even provided the court with extensive proof of email correspondence between the attorney and the defendant. The court examined the emails and found they did not reveal any sensitive or confidential information themselves. However, the case turned in favor of the defendant when it was concluded the emails likely included conversations about negotiation and financial strategies.

During the time the court deliberated the defendant’s disqualification motion, the attorney, who previously represented the defendant and was the focal point of the motion, retired from practicing law. This further fueled the dispute between parties and the proper rule to apply under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10.

Rule of Professional Conduct

The Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10 has two subsections. Subsection A applies to currently associated lawyers, where subsection B applies to formerly associated lawyers. The district court ruled in favor of the stricter subsection Rule 1.10 A. The court’s main concern was that the defendant had conveyed information concerning negotiation and financial strategies to the primary attorney and that it would likely be relevant to the litigation and negotiation strategy of the current case. The defendant likely imputed this knowledge to the new attorney, therefore disqualifying him for representation overlap.

The court rejected both the argument that the primary attorney’s retirement affected the result and screening as a measure to save the representation. The Illinois federal magistrate judge recommended the attorney be disqualified from representing the therapy provider in its suit against the nursing facility, stating the fact the attorney works at a firm that had previously represented the nursing facility bars him from the litigation.

The Need for Strong Conflict Checks

This case specifically highlights the importance of conflict checks before beginning litigation. Section leaders from the Ethics & Professionalism Committee of the ABA Section of Litigation warn that this is an issue that needs to be explored with the client at the very outset. This case is an example that litigators can look to offensively, not only defensively. It is in the best interest of attorneys and law firms to run robust conflict of interest checks as part of an initial conflicts system. Identifying party information and subject matter descriptions thoroughly enables the lawyer to do a comprehensive conflict check in order to avoid imputed disqualification.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)    Send article as PDF   

Filed Under: Business ManagementFeatured Stories

About the Author:

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply

  • Polls