The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2022

The court concluded that if the lawyer was not disqualified because he had not received con fidential information, then neither was the law firm. The court’s decision notes the evidence in this case fell short of showing the lawyer had gained knowledge of any material or confidential information that would jeopardize the integrity of the judicial process. The court further clarified that more than the “appearance of impartiality” standard (which applies to judicial disqualification) is required to pre clude a party’s representation by

from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter if that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client.

the attorney of their choice. I think a review of this case would be help ful to anyone seeking or contesting an attorney disqualification. Mr. Stevens is OBA ethics counsel. Have an ethics question? It’s a member benefit, and all inquiries are confidential. Contact him at richards@okbar.org or 405-416-7055. Ethics information is also online at www.okbar.org/ec.

The court found that, while the subsequent matter was very similar to the previous matter the attorney had handled, the attor ney was not disqualified because while the evidence showed the attorney had access to general information about the association’s policies, there was no showing of access to confidential information.

ENDNOTES 1. Bd. of County Comm’rs V. Assoc. of County Comm’rs of Okla. Self-Insured Group, 2021 OK 15.

AUGUST 2022 | 55

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL