Cromley v. Board of Education
17 F.3d 1059 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm can rebut the presumption of shared confidences and avoid disqualification when it hires an attorney from an opposing firm, provided it implements timely and effective screening mechanisms to prevent the flow of confidential information from the newly hired attorney.
Facts:
- Marcella Ann Cromley was a Reading Department Chair at Lockport Township High School.
- In December 1986, two students reported sexual misconduct by another teacher, Donald Meints, to Cromley.
- Cromley reported the allegations to her principal, who reprimanded Meints but did not place a report in his personnel file.
- On February 12, 1987, dissatisfied with the school's response, Cromley reported the incident to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
- On March 4, 1987, Cromley gave Meints a harsh written performance evaluation that mentioned the student allegations.
- On March 27, 1987, school officials informed Cromley that her Reading Department was being merged into the English Department, eliminating her position as chair.
- Cromley's subsequent applications for other administrative positions were also denied.
- During the ensuing litigation, Cromley's attorney, Larry Weiner, accepted a partnership at the Scariano law firm, which was representing the defendant school board.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcella Ann Cromley filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Education and school officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- During the litigation, Cromley's attorney, Larry Weiner, moved to the law firm representing the defendants.
- Cromley filed a motion in the district court to disqualify the defendants' law firm due to the conflict of interest.
- The district court denied Cromley's motion to disqualify, finding the firm's screening procedures were sufficient.
- The defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on Cromley's First Amendment retaliation claim.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Cromley appealed both the denial of the disqualification motion and the grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a law firm that hires an attorney who previously represented the opposing party in ongoing litigation avoid disqualification if it implements timely and effective screening mechanisms to prevent the sharing of confidential information?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ripple
Yes, a law firm can avoid disqualification by implementing timely and effective screening mechanisms. The court applied a three-step analysis for attorney disqualification. First, it found a 'substantial relationship' existed between the attorney's prior and present representations, as it was the same case. Second, this relationship created a presumption that the attorney, Weiner, possessed confidential information from his former client, Cromley. Third, the court examined whether the new firm, Scariano, had successfully rebutted the presumption that these confidences would be shared within the firm. The court held that the presumption was successfully rebutted because the Scariano firm implemented timely and effective screening procedures, often called a 'Chinese Wall.' These measures included denying the new attorney access to case files, placing the files in a different office, admonishing all firm employees not to discuss the case with him, and denying him any share of the fees from the litigation. The court rejected a per se rule of disqualification for an individual attorney changing firms, balancing the need to protect client confidences against the recognition that disqualification is a drastic measure.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the validity of using 'ethical screens' or 'Chinese Walls' as a primary method for law firms in the Seventh Circuit to manage imputed conflicts of interest arising from lateral hires. By rejecting a stricter, per se disqualification rule, the court provides a practical framework that balances the protection of client confidentiality with lawyer mobility and a client's right to their counsel of choice. The decision offers clear guidance on the specific institutional mechanisms required for a screen to be deemed effective, influencing how law firms handle conflicts checks and integrate new attorneys who bring potential conflicts.
Unlock the full brief for Cromley v. Board of Education