Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffattorneytrialmotionburden of proof
attorneytrialmotion

Related Cases

Derechin v. State University of New York, 963 F.2d 513, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,457, 60 USLW 2687, 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 685, 75 Ed. Law Rep. 132
View Case »
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, 54 USLW 4789
View Case »
George v. Caton, 93 N.M. 370, 600 P.2d 822, 1979-NMCA-028
View Case »
Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 2002 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,425, 52 Fed.R.Serv.3d 777, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3176, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3975
View Case »
In re Skinner & Eddy Corporation, 265 U.S. 86, 44 S.Ct. 446, 68 L.Ed. 912
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104

Facts

Christopher Christian, an attorney, previously represented Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc. in several cases involving pipeline leaks while at the firm Turner and Boisseau. After leaving that firm, he joined Michaud, Hutton, Fisher & Andersen and filed a lawsuit against Coastal, alleging injuries from substances leaked from a pipeline. Coastal moved to disqualify Christian and his new firm, claiming a conflict of interest due to the substantial relationship between the previous and current cases.

Christopher Christian was a member of the firm of Turner and Boisseau, Chartered, from 1991 to 1993. During this time, he, along with Eldon Boisseau, represented Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc., in several cases involving pipeline leakage or spills.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in denying Coastal's motion to disqualify attorney Christopher Christian and his firm based on alleged conflicts of interest under MRPC 1.9(a) and MRPC 1.10(b).

Whether the trial court erred in denying Coastal's motion to disqualify attorney Christopher Christian and his firm based on alleged conflicts of interest under MRPC 1.9(a) and MRPC 1.10(b).

Rule

Under MRPC 1.9(a), an attorney who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation. The burden of proof rests with the party alleging disqualification.

1. Disqualification of an attorney under MRPC 1.9(a) is dependent upon the party moving for disqualification to establish that: (1) the attorney whose disqualification is sought formerly represented the party in a matter; (2) the matter is substantially related to a matter in which the attorney now seeks to represent a new client; and (3) the new client's interest is substantially adverse to the interest of the party seeking disqualification.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the trial court's determination of whether the cases were 'substantially related' was a legal conclusion based on the facts of the case. The court emphasized that once it is established that an attorney has formerly represented a client in a matter and seeks to represent another client in a substantially related matter, an irrebuttable presumption arises that the attorney acquired confidential information during the former representation, leading to disqualification.

The Supreme Court found that the trial court's determination of whether the cases were 'substantially related' was a legal conclusion based upon facts of the case and, thus, Supreme Court's review was unlimited.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, disqualifying attorney Christian and his firm from representing the plaintiff against Coastal, as the cases were deemed substantially related and the attorney had acquired material and confidential information during his previous representation.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Who won?

Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the attorney's prior representation created a conflict of interest that warranted disqualification.

Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the attorney's prior representation created a conflict of interest that warranted disqualification.

You must be