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

litigationattorneymotion
litigationattorneymotion

Related Cases

Cheney v. Wells, 23 Misc.3d 161, 877 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28480
View Case »
Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 55 USLW 2331, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 568, 22 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 125
View Case »
Krahn v. Kinney, 43 Ohio St.3d 103, 538 N.E.2d 1058
View Case »
Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740
View Case »
Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 892 A.2d 318
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Garland v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 1401030

Facts

The litigation centers on Garland's sale of Heritage Ford–Lincoln–Mercury, Inc. to Ford through its Dealer Development Program. Butler Snow LLP, which had previously represented Ford in various consumer and warranty matters, merged with Walker Tipps, whose attorneys were involved in the Garland case. After the merger, Ford sought to disqualify Butler Snow, claiming a conflict of interest due to the representation of both parties in related matters.

The litigation centers on Garland's sale of Heritage Ford–Lincoln–Mercury, Inc. to Ford through its Dealer Development Program. Butler Snow LLP, which had previously represented Ford in various consumer and warranty matters, merged with Walker Tipps, whose attorneys were involved in the Garland case.

Issue

Whether Butler Snow LLP should be disqualified from representing Robert J. Garland due to a conflict of interest arising from its prior representation of Ford Motor Company.

Whether Butler Snow LLP should be disqualified from representing Robert J. Garland due to a conflict of interest arising from its prior representation of Ford Motor Company.

Rule

The court applied the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.7 regarding concurrent representation and Rule 1.9 concerning duties to former clients, which prohibit representation that involves a conflict of interest without informed consent.

The court applied the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.7 regarding concurrent representation and Rule 1.9 concerning duties to former clients, which prohibit representation that involves a conflict of interest without informed consent.

Analysis

The court analyzed the potential conflict under Rule 1.9, determining that the Garland matter was not substantially related to Butler Snow's prior work for Ford. Although Butler Snow had access to Walker Tipps' client information and was aware of the conflict, it continued to represent Ford in active matters until after the merger. The court noted that disqualification is not automatic for violations of the concurrent representation rule and considered the specific circumstances of the case.

The court analyzed the potential conflict under Rule 1.9, determining that the Garland matter was not substantially related to Butler Snow's prior work for Ford. Although Butler Snow had access to Walker Tipps' client information and was aware of the conflict, it continued to represent Ford in active matters until after the merger.

Conclusion

The court denied Ford's motion to disqualify Butler Snow from representing Garland, citing the undue hardship that disqualification would impose on Garland, who had been pursuing the case for over two years.

The court denied Ford's motion to disqualify Butler Snow from representing Garland, citing the undue hardship that disqualification would impose on Garland, who had been pursuing the case for over two years.

Who won?

Robert J. Garland prevailed in the case as the court denied Ford's motion to disqualify Butler Snow, allowing him to continue with his chosen counsel.

Robert J. Garland prevailed in the case as the court denied Ford's motion to disqualify Butler Snow, allowing him to continue with his chosen counsel.

You must be