Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc.
2008 WL 2756600, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53502, 571 F.Supp.2d 17 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's violation of the ethical rule against representing a current client against a former client in a substantially related matter is sufficient grounds for disqualification, as the substantial relationship creates an irrebuttable presumption that the attorney received confidential information that would taint the proceedings.
Facts:
- Larry Klayman served as the Chairman and General Counsel for the organization Judicial Watch.
- In March 2001, while acting as General Counsel, Klayman negotiated and signed a legal representation agreement on behalf of Judicial Watch to provide legal services to Peter Paul.
- The parties amended this agreement in April 2002, with Klayman again acting on behalf of Judicial Watch.
- Klayman subsequently left his position at Judicial Watch.
- After his departure, Klayman became the attorney for Peter Paul.
- As Paul's counsel, Klayman filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Judicial Watch.
- The lawsuit's central claims, including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, were based directly on the legal representation agreement Klayman had previously signed for Judicial Watch.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Paul filed suit against Judicial Watch in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the court of first instance.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Judicial Watch's motion to dismiss, which narrowed the remaining claims to those related to the legal services agreement.
- Judicial Watch, as defendant, then filed a Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, Larry Klayman.
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 an attorney's representation of a plaintiff in a lawsuit against his former client violate the rule of professional conduct against successive representation and thus warrant disqualification, where the lawsuit's claims arise directly from a contract the attorney signed on behalf of that former client?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Yes. An attorney's representation under these circumstances is a flagrant violation of the rule of professional conduct against successive representation and warrants disqualification. The court applied D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, which prohibits a lawyer from representing a person in a matter that is the same or substantially related to a matter for a former client, where the current client's interests are materially adverse to the former client's. The court found all elements were clearly met: Klayman was a former attorney for Judicial Watch; Paul's interests as plaintiff were adverse to Judicial Watch as defendant; and the present matter was substantially related to, if not the same as, the prior representation because the lawsuit was about the very contract Klayman executed for Judicial Watch. This conduct constitutes a prohibited "changing of sides." The court held that a violation of Rule 1.9 is sufficient grounds for disqualification because the establishment of a "substantial relationship" creates an irrebuttable presumption that the attorney received confidential information, which inherently taints the proceedings by giving the current client an unfair advantage.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of conflict-of-interest rules, particularly the duty of loyalty to former clients under Rule 1.9. It clarifies that in the D.C. Circuit, a clear violation based on a "substantial relationship" between representations is sufficient for disqualification without a separate, heightened inquiry into whether the trial will actually be "tainted." The ruling solidifies the principle of an irrebuttable presumption of shared confidences, making it exceedingly difficult for an attorney to defeat a disqualification motion once a substantial relationship is proven. This approach prioritizes the integrity of the legal process and the protection of former clients from potential misuse of confidential information.
