The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2022

E thics & P rofessional R esponsibility

Attorney Disqualification… Simplified? By Richard Stevens

L AST YEAR, THE OKLAHOMA Supreme Court clarified the standard to be used in proceed ings to disqualify a lawyer and law firm based on a former client conflict. In the case of Board of County Commissioners v. Association of County Commissioners, 1 the court was presented with the trial court’s determination that a lawyer and the lawyer’s entire firm were not disqualified from representing the board because that lawyer had previously repre sented the association. The underlying dispute involved a liability protection agreement entered into between the parties. The board asserted a breach of contract by the associa tion, and professional negligence/ malpractice by a law firm hired by the association to represent the sheriff of Harmon County. An attorney representing the board entered an appearance, and six months later, the association filed a motion to disqualify that attorney and his entire firm. The association sought disqualification because the attorney had, four years earlier, represented the association in an almost identical matter. The trial court held a disqual ification hearing and denied the motion to disqualify. The trial court noted that while the decision was a “close call,” disqualification

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, absent informed consent; 2) ORPC 1.10, which prohibits any lawyer associated with a firm from representing a client when any lawyer associated with the firm would be prohibited from representing the client if practicing alone; 3) ORPC 1.6, which prohibits a lawyer who, or a lawyer whose former firm, has formerly represented a client

was not required. The association appealed, and the Supreme Court retained the appeal and rendered its opinion on April 6, 2021. The court noted that review of an order denying disqualification is immediately appealable because it affects the substantial rights of a party. The court reviewed the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error and examined the decision de novo. The court stated that three rules of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct were implicated: 1) ORPC 1.9, which prohibits a lawyer who, or a lawyer whose former firm, has formerly represented a client

54 | AUGUST 2022

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL