State Ex Rel. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kortum
1997 Neb. LEXIS 48, 251 Neb. 805, 559 N.W.2d 496 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm is disqualified from representing a party against a former client only if the current matter is 'substantially related' to the prior representation. Two matters are substantially related if the similarity of their factual and legal issues creates a genuine threat that the firm received confidential information in the prior matter that could be used against the former client in the current matter.
Facts:
- On July 1, 1992, Debra J. Holden was injured when she fell into a hole in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart store in Scottsbluff.
- The law firm Van Steenberg, through its partner Steve Smith, had previously represented Wal-Mart in four separate tort cases.
- One of the prior cases, Pottorff v. Wal-Mart, involved a customer who slipped and fell on a wet floor inside the same store and concluded in June 1993.
- During its prior representation of Wal-Mart, Smith and the Van Steenberg firm were given access to Wal-Mart's procedure manuals and were informed of the company's general defense strategies and internal policies.
- After the conclusion of the last of the four prior cases, Wal-Mart informed Smith that neither he nor his firm, Van Steenberg, would be hired to represent Wal-Mart in any future matters.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra J. Holden filed a negligence lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the Scotts Bluff County District Court (trial court).
- After Holden's original counsel withdrew, Tylor Petitt of the Van Steenberg law firm entered an appearance on her behalf.
- Wal-Mart filed a motion in the district court to disqualify the Van Steenberg law firm, arguing a conflict of interest based on the firm's prior representation of Wal-Mart.
- The district court denied Wal-Mart's motion to disqualify.
- Wal-Mart (the relator) then brought this original action for a peremptory writ of mandamus in the Nebraska Supreme Court (highest court) to compel the district court to vacate its order and disqualify the firm.
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 law firm's prior representation of a company in a premises liability case require its disqualification from a subsequent, different premises liability case against the same company on the grounds that the two matters are 'substantially related'?
Opinions:
Majority - Connolly, J.
No. A law firm's prior representation does not require disqualification unless the current and former matters are 'substantially related.' The court established a new test for this determination, focusing on whether the similarity of factual and legal issues creates a genuine threat that confidential information from the prior case could be used against the former client. Here, the court found the prior case involving a slip-and-fall on a wet floor inside the store was factually and legally distinct from the current case involving a fall into a hole in the parking lot. The court reasoned that the information the firm learned about Wal-Mart's defense strategies was commonplace for such tort actions and not confidential, privileged, or undiscoverable. Therefore, no genuine threat existed, and disqualification was not required. The court explicitly rejected the 'appearance of impropriety' as a standard for disqualification.
Concurring - White, C.J.
No. The author concurs in the judgment but suggests the sole test for disqualification should be the one articulated in State ex rel. Freezer Servs., Inc. v. Mullen. That test applies only when a law firm hires attorneys who represented the opposing party in the same litigation. Since this case involves a law firm handling a new case against a former client, and not lawyers switching sides in the same case, the author believes disqualification is not warranted under that narrower rule.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying and narrowing the 'substantially related' test for attorney disqualification in Nebraska. It moves the doctrine away from a vague 'appearance of impropriety' standard toward a more concrete, fact-intensive analysis focused on the 'genuine threat' of misusing actual confidential information. By providing a non-exhaustive list of factors, the court offers a practical framework for lower courts to apply when assessing conflicts of interest with former clients. This decision makes it more difficult to disqualify a law firm, thereby giving more weight to a party's right to choose its counsel unless a clear and tangible risk to a former client's confidences exists.
