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

plaintifflitigationtrialcorporation
plaintifftrialmotionparalegal

Related Cases

Kerbs v. Fall River Industries, Inc., 502 F.2d 731, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,788
View Case »
Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556
View Case »
Laremont-Lopez v. Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Center, 968 F.Supp. 1075
View Case »
Hackett v. Village Court Associates, 602 F.Supp. 856, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,054
View Case »
Gonzalez v. United States, 80 F.4th 183, 116 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1418
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re American Home Products Corp., 985 S.W.2d 68, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 253

Facts

The case involved approximately 3,000 plaintiffs who sued American Home Products Corporation and its affiliates over the Norplant contraceptive. The distributor sought to disqualify two law firms representing the plaintiffs, claiming that one firm retained a legal assistant who had previously worked with the distributor's counsel. The legal assistant, Diana Palacios, had worked on the Norplant litigation for the distributor and later approached the plaintiffs' counsel for employment. The court found that the presumption of shared confidential information warranted disqualification of the Herrera firm.

Palacios lives in Crystal City and maintains an office located within Jesse Gamez's Crystal City law office. Palacios uses Gamez's facilities and his secretarial staff and has also used Gamez's secretarial staff in his San Antonio office.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to disqualify the Herrera firm based on the retention of a legal assistant who had previously worked for the opposing counsel?

We first consider the contention that Wyeth waived any right to disqualify counsel for plaintiffs based on their contact with Diana Palacios.

Rule

The presumption that a legal assistant received confidential information is not rebuttable, and the burden is on the party seeking to continue representation to show that there is no reasonable prospect of disclosure of confidential information.

The presumption that a legal assistant received confidential information is not a rebuttable one.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the presumption of shared confidential information was not rebutted by the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that the legal assistant's work for the distributor involved tasks typical of a legal assistant, and the lack of screening measures taken by the Herrera firm created an unacceptable risk of disclosure. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not disqualifying the Herrera firm.

We squarely held in Phoenix Founders that a paralegal or legal assistant who has worked on a case 'must be subject to … a conclusive presumption that confidences and secrets were imparted.'

Conclusion

The court conditionally issued writs, disqualifying the Herrera firm due to the failure to adequately screen the legal assistant from the litigation, while not disqualifying the co-counsel.

Disqualification of the Herrera firm was required under these circumstances, and the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Wyeth's motion.

Who won?

Wyeth prevailed in disqualifying the Herrera firm because the court found that the presumption of shared confidential information was not rebutted.

Wyeth seeks to disqualify those firms.

You must be