Mailer v. Mailer
1983 Mass. LEXIS 1719, 455 N.E.2d 1211, 390 Mass. 371 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A brief, uncompensated preliminary consultation between an attorney and a prospective client does not automatically create an attorney-client relationship requiring disqualification if no confidential or strategically valuable information was exchanged, especially after a significant lapse of time.
Facts:
- Beverly Rentz Bentley Mailer and Norman K. Mailer were married on December 28, 1963, and had two children together.
- The Mailers separated in the summer of 1970.
- In June 1973, Beverly consulted Attorney Monroe L. Inker concerning a divorce from Norman.
- During the one-hour interview, Beverly provided some vital statistics to Mr. Inker's secretary for an interoffice form and orally communicated information, including a newspaper article about Norman's purported 'fifth wife.'
- Mr. Inker told Beverly that if she wished him to represent her, she needed to prepare her life history and pay a $2,400 retainer.
- Beverly did not retain Mr. Inker, stating that his explanation of legal attachments frightened her and she did not want a 'sensational case.'
- Beverly retained other attorneys in July 1974, who represented her throughout the trial.
- Five years after the consultation, Mr. Inker appeared as counsel for Norman in the divorce proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Rentz Bentley Mailer (plaintiff) initiated divorce proceedings against Norman K. Mailer (defendant) in the Probate Court.
- Beverly filed a motion to strike the appearance of Attorney Monroe L. Inker as counsel for Norman, seeking his disqualification.
- The Probate Court judge held a hearing on Beverly's motion to strike, taking testimony from Beverly and Mr. Inker.
- The Probate Court judge denied Beverly's motion to disqualify Mr. Inker.
- A judgment of divorce nisi was entered in favor of Beverly by the Probate Court.
- Beverly appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion.
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 brief, uncompensated preliminary consultation between an attorney and a prospective client, where the client fails to demonstrate disclosure of confidential or strategically vital information, necessitate the attorney's disqualification from later representing the prospective client's adversary in the same matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Nolan, J.
No, a brief, uncompensated preliminary consultation does not require an attorney's disqualification from later representing the prospective client's adversary if the client cannot prove that confidential or strategically vital information was exchanged. The court affirmed the denial of Beverly's motion to disqualify Mr. Inker, finding no reversible error. The judge was not required to believe Beverly's testimony that she disclosed intimate details of her marriage, especially given that much of the information she provided was either vital statistics, already known to Norman, or publicly available (like the newspaper article). The court noted that a lack of a paid fee is not conclusive, but the record did not support the claim that Mr. Inker used confidential information against Beverly. The lapse of five years between the consultation and Mr. Inker's representation of Norman was also a relevant, though not controlling, factor, as some of the information furnished by Beverly was no longer accurate. The court balanced the litigant's right to chosen counsel against the need to maintain high professional standards, concluding that while the facts were close to the 'outer limits,' they did not necessitate reversal.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of attorney disqualification based on preliminary consultations, particularly in family law matters. It places a significant burden on the party seeking disqualification to prove that confidential and strategically relevant information was actually disclosed to the attorney and could be used against them. The decision emphasizes that a brief, unpaid interaction, especially when information exchanged is publicly available or not truly sensitive, may not create a disqualifying attorney-client relationship, particularly if a substantial amount of time has elapsed. This ruling provides guidance to both attorneys considering representing a party adverse to a former preliminary consultee and to parties seeking to disqualify opposing counsel, by stressing the importance of actual prejudice from confidential disclosure rather than merely a prior contact.
