Keuffer v. O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.
373 P.3d 14, 383 Mont. 439, 2016 MT 127 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's tactical use of the mere fact that a prospective client consultation occurred violates the duty of confidentiality under the Rules of Professional Conduct and may warrant disqualification if it prejudices the prospective client by causing intimidation or undermining faith in the fairness of the proceedings.
Facts:
- In October 2008, Luke Keuffer sustained a serious facial injury when a Mossberg model 800 rifle, held by his wife Stephanie Keuffer, allegedly discharged after falling.
- On August 10, 2010, Luke Keuffer called the law firm Tarlow & Stonecipher, PLLC, and spoke with attorney Margaret Weamer for six to twelve minutes regarding a potential claim against a gun manufacturer.
- Following the conversation, Weamer informed Luke Keuffer that Tarlow & Stonecipher would not be interested in representing him.
- The Keuffers subsequently hired other counsel and filed a personal injury lawsuit against O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.
- Tarlow & Stonecipher later agreed to serve as local counsel for Mossberg in the same lawsuit.
- Before taking the case, Tarlow & Stonecipher conducted a conflict check that revealed the prior phone consultation between Luke Keuffer and Weamer.
- Tarlow & Stonecipher disclosed the existence of the consultation to Mossberg's lead counsel, John Renzulli of Renzulli Law Firm, but did not disclose it to the Keuffers' counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- Luke and Stephanie Keuffer filed a personal injury lawsuit against O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, a state trial court.
- During discovery, Mossberg's counsel deposed Stephanie Keuffer.
- Following the deposition, the Keuffers filed a motion in the District Court to disqualify both of Mossberg's law firms.
- The District Court held a hearing on the motion to disqualify.
- The District Court issued an order granting the Keuffers' motion and disqualifying Mossberg's counsel.
- Mossberg & Sons, Inc. appealed the disqualification order to the Supreme Court of Montana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by disqualifying a defendant's counsel for using the fact of a plaintiff's prior prospective client consultation with the firm to intimidate the plaintiff during a deposition, even if no specific confidential information from that consultation is used?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wheat
No. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by disqualifying Mossberg's counsel. An attorney's use of information from a prospective client consultation is not limited to the substantive content of the conversation; it also includes the very fact that the consultation occurred. Under Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.20(b), there is an absolute prohibition on using or revealing any information learned in a consultation. Here, attorney Renzulli consciously used the fact of Luke Keuffer's prior consultation with co-counsel's firm for tactical litigation purposes during a deposition. The trial court found this questioning was intended to intimidate the Keuffers and create an adverse inference that their case was weak because it had been rejected by another firm. This conduct prejudiced the Keuffers by causing them to question the fairness of the proceedings and undermined public trust in the legal profession. While a rule violation alone is not prima facie grounds for disqualification, it can be considered when the misconduct results in prejudice, as it did here. Therefore, the disqualification of both Renzulli and the imputed disqualification of Tarlow & Stonecipher was a proper exercise of the court's discretion.
Dissenting - Justice Baker
Yes. The District Court abused its discretion in disqualifying counsel. The majority misapplies Rule 1.20, which distinguishes between the general duty not to use information (1.20(b)) and the specific grounds for disqualification (1.20(c)). Disqualification under Rule 1.20(c) is only triggered if the attorney received information from the prospective client that could be 'significantly harmful.' The District Court made no such finding; in fact, it acknowledged it was unclear what information was disclosed. Renzulli’s conduct was unprofessional and sanctionable, but disqualification is an extreme remedy that is not justified without the disclosure of significantly harmful information. The majority's holding improperly lowers the threshold for disqualification in prospective client cases, giving them protections that exceed those intended by the rules. Lesser remedies, such as an order in limine, would have been more appropriate.
Dissenting - Justice McKinnon
Yes. The District Court abused its discretion in imposing the severe remedy of disqualification. I agree with the majority that there was a violation of Rule 1.20(b) and that the Keuffers were prejudiced as a result of counsel’s conduct. However, disqualification is a harsh remedy that should be imposed sparingly due to its disruptive effect on litigation. The sanction was disproportionate to the misconduct. The District Court could have maintained the integrity of the proceeding through a less severe, measured remedy, such as precluding counsel from any further use of the offensive line of questioning. Imposing the most extreme sanction available was not a fair or measured response to the violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the interpretation of 'information' under Rule 1.20(b) concerning prospective clients to include the fact that a consultation occurred. It establishes that the tactical use of this fact to intimidate or create an adverse inference can constitute a prejudicial violation warranting disqualification, even without proof that 'significantly harmful' substantive information was shared as required for disqualification under Rule 1.20(c). This creates a precedent that lowers the bar for disqualification in prospective client conflict cases by shifting the focus from the content of the communication to the prejudicial effect of its use. The ruling serves as a stern warning to law firms about the potential consequences of weaponizing any aspect of a prior prospective client contact against that person in subsequent litigation.
