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

contractdefendantlawyertrialmotion
contractdefendantlawyertrial

Related Cases

Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin, 2011 Ark. 51, 378 S.W.3d 135
View Case »
Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc., 708 F.2d 1263, 1983-1 Trade Cases P 65,408
View Case »
Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126
View Case »
Williams v. Reed, 48 Cal.2d 57, 307 P.2d 353
View Case »
Carney v. State, 525 So.2d 776
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hayes v. Central States Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., 51 P.3d 562, 2002 OK 30

Facts

April Mendoza worked as a secretary for the law firm representing Dr. Hayes in a contract dispute. After resigning, she took a position with the law firm representing the defendant, Central States Orthopedic. Dr. Hayes claimed that Mendoza had access to confidential information, while Mendoza asserted her role was purely administrative. After an eight-month delay, Dr. Hayes filed a motion to disqualify the hiring firm, which the trial court granted without allowing the firm to present evidence regarding Mendoza's confidentiality.

April Mendoza worked as a secretary for the law firm representing Dr. Hayes in a contract dispute. After resigning, she took a position with the law firm representing the defendant, Central States Orthopedic.

Issue

Did the trial court err in disqualifying the hiring firm based on the secretary's prior employment and the physician's delay in raising the disqualification issue?

Did the trial court err in disqualifying the hiring firm based on the secretary's prior employment and the physician's delay in raising the disqualification issue?

Rule

A party may waive the right to seek disqualification by delaying action, and a hiring firm should be allowed to prove that a non-lawyer employee has not revealed client confidences and has been effectively screened.

A party may waive the right to seek disqualification by delaying action, and a hiring firm should be allowed to prove that a non-lawyer employee has not revealed client confidences and has been effectively screened.

Analysis

The court found that Dr. Hayes's eight-month delay in seeking disqualification indicated a waiver of his right to insist on such a remedy. The court also noted that the trial court failed to consider whether the hiring firm had established an effective screening mechanism to prevent any potential disclosure of confidential information by Mendoza.

The court found that Dr. Hayes's eight-month delay in seeking disqualification indicated a waiver of his right to insist on such a remedy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision to disqualify the hiring firm and remanded the case, emphasizing that the hiring firm should have the opportunity to prove that the secretary had not disclosed any confidential information.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision to disqualify the hiring firm and remanded the case, emphasizing that the hiring firm should have the opportunity to prove that the secretary had not disclosed any confidential information.

Who won?

Central States Orthopedic prevailed because the Supreme Court found that Dr. Hayes waived his right to disqualify the firm due to his delay in raising the issue.

Central States Orthopedic prevailed because the Supreme Court found that Dr. Hayes waived his right to disqualify the firm due to his delay in raising the issue.

You must be