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

plaintiffdefendantattorneymotionattorney-client privilege
plaintiffdefendantattorneymotionattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

U.S. v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247
View Case »
State v. von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995, 47 A.L.R.4th 455
View Case »
Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104
View Case »
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 »
Virzi v. Grand Trunk Warehouse and Cold Storage Co., 571 F.Supp. 507, 37 Fed.R.Serv.2d 864
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1719

Facts

The underlying civil suit, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arose from events on November 14, 1980, when James J. Kevlik's vehicle was stopped by police in Derry, New Hampshire. The Kevliks and John Southmayd, passengers in the vehicle, alleged unlawful arrest, physical abuse, and denial of medical care by the police. Southmayd had previously consulted with an attorney from Wiggin & Nourie regarding his criminal charges, which created a potential conflict of interest when the Kevliks later sought to disqualify the firm from representing the Town of Derry in their civil suit.

The underlying civil suit, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arose from events on November 14, 1980, when James J. Kevlik's vehicle was stopped by police in Derry, New Hampshire. The Kevliks and John Southmayd, passengers in the vehicle, alleged unlawful arrest, physical abuse, and denial of medical care by the police. Southmayd had previously consulted with an attorney from Wiggin & Nourie regarding his criminal charges, which created a potential conflict of interest when the Kevliks later sought to disqualify the firm from representing the Town of Derry in their civil suit.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the disqualification claim, whether there was a delay in raising the claim, whether an attorney-client privilege existed, and whether there was a violation of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility.

The main legal issues were whether the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the disqualification claim, whether there was a delay in raising the claim, whether an attorney-client privilege existed, and whether there was a violation of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility.

Rule

The court applied the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly DR 4–101(B)(1), which prohibits attorneys from revealing client confidences, and established that disqualification can be sought by opposing counsel if there is a potential violation of ethical standards.

The court applied the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly DR 4–101(B)(1), which prohibits attorneys from revealing client confidences, and established that disqualification can be sought by opposing counsel if there is a potential violation of ethical standards.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs' attorney had standing to bring the disqualification motion based on the Model Code of Professional Responsibility. It ruled that the delay in filing the motion did not negate the need for disqualification, as the ethical standards must be upheld. The court also determined that an attorney-client privilege existed between Southmayd and his former counsel, which created a conflict of interest for Wiggin & Nourie in representing the Town of Derry.

The court found that the plaintiffs' attorney had standing to bring the disqualification motion based on the Model Code of Professional Responsibility. It ruled that the delay in filing the motion did not negate the need for disqualification, as the ethical standards must be upheld. The court also determined that an attorney-client privilege existed between Southmayd and his former counsel, which created a conflict of interest for Wiggin & Nourie in representing the Town of Derry.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's order disqualifying Wiggin & Nourie from representing the Town of Derry, concluding that the firm had a conflict of interest due to the attorney-client privilege that existed with Southmayd.

The court affirmed the district court's order disqualifying Wiggin & Nourie from representing the Town of Derry, concluding that the firm had a conflict of interest due to the attorney-client privilege that existed with Southmayd.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, represented by their attorney, prevailed in the case because the court upheld the disqualification of the defendant's counsel based on ethical violations and conflicts of interest.

The plaintiffs, represented by their attorney, prevailed in the case because the court upheld the disqualification of the defendant's counsel based on ethical violations and conflicts of interest.

You must be