Title: Stowell v. Bennet

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Stowell v. Bennett (99-240); 169 Vt. 630; 739 A.2d 1210

[Filed 18-Aug-1999]

						
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-240

                               JUNE TERM, 1999

Arthur Stowell, Sr.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
	                               }	                        
Sheila Bennett	                       }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. S1417-98CnC	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Arthur Stowell, Sr. appeals from an order of the superior
  court granting defendant  Sheila Bennett's motion to disqualify Stowell's
  attorney, Robert Katims.  Stowell contends the  court erred in concluding
  that Katims' former representation of Bennett in an unrelated criminal 
  matter required his disqualification.  We agree and, therefore, reverse.
   	
       The material facts are undisputed.  Stowell and Bennett had previously
  lived together with  their two children in a trailer in Hinesburg.  They
  were not married.  After the parties separated,  Bennett continued to live
  in the trailer with the two children.  In November 1998, Stowell filed  an
  action in superior court to regain possession of the trailer and its
  contents.  He was  represented by Attorney Katims.  Katims had previously
  represented Bennett in an unrelated  criminal matter in district court,
  which was eventually dismissed in 1995.  

       In March 1999, Bennett moved to disqualify Katims from his
  representation of Stowell on  the basis of his previous representation of
  Bennett.  Bennett alleged that Katims was privy to  confidences from the
  prior representation that might be used against her in the current
  litigation,  and that his representation of her former boyfriend gave rise
  to the appearance of impropriety  and lessened her confidence in the legal
  system.  Stowell opposed the motion, arguing that the  current lawsuit was
  entirely unrelated to the previous representation, and that no confidential 
  communications had occurred that might disadvantage Bennett.  Bennett
  subsequently  acknowledged that she had not had any conversations with
  Katims when Stowell was not present.  The trial court granted the motion
  without a formal hearing, citing EC 4-5 and 4-6 of the  Vermont Code of
  Professional Responsibility.  

       Stowell thereupon filed a petition for extraordinary relief with this
  Court under V.R.A.P.  21(b).  We granted the petition, noting that
  petitioner lacked any other adequate avenue of relief  through
  interlocutory appeal or appeal from a final order.
    
       A motion to disqualify counsel is a matter that rests within the sound
  discretion of the trial  court, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent
  an abuse of discretion. See In re Vt. Elec.  Power Producers, Inc., 165 Vt.
  282, 293 (1996).  The propriety of a lawyer representing a party  in a
  lawsuit adverse to the interests of a former client is addressed in EC 4-5
  and EC 4-6 of the  Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility.  EC 4-5
  states, in part, that a "lawyer should not  use information acquired in the
  course of the representation of a client to the disadvantage of the

 

  client .  .  .  .  Care should be exercised by a lawyer to prevent the
  disclosure of the confidences  and secrets of one client to another, and no
  employment should be accepted that might require  such disclosure."  EC 4-6
  in part provides: "The obligation of a lawyer to preserve the  confidences
  and secrets of his client continues after the termination of his
  employment."  

       In In re Themelis, 117 Vt. 19, 23 (1951), this Court observed that an
  attorney "should  refrain from accepting any employment which may require
  him to do anything which will  injuriously affect his former client in any
  matter in which he formerly represented him, and  where he may be called
  upon in his new relation, to use against his former client, any knowledge 
  or information acquired through his former connection."  

       Rule 1.9 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede
  the Code of  Professional Responsibility in September 1999, sets forth
  standards governing the representation  of interests adverse to former
  clients in terms substantively similar to Themelis.  Thus, an  attorney
  will be disqualified if he has accepted employment adverse to the interests
  of the former  client "in the same or a substantially related matter." 
  Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct,  Rule 1.9(a); see also State v.
  Crepeault, 167 Vt. 209, 216-17 (1997) (discussing scope of Rule  1.9). 
  Furthermore, an attorney may not use information relating to the former
  representation to  the disadvantage of the former client, except where the
  information has become generally  known, or disclosure is otherwise
  permitted or required by the Rules.  See Vermont Rules of  Professional
  Conduct, Rule 1.9(c).    

       Assessed in the light of these standards, the record here reveals no
  basis for the  disqualification of Attorney Katims.  First, there is no
  claim, nor any basis for concluding, that  the current action for
  possession of a mobile home is related in any respect to the criminal
  matter  in which Katims formerly represented Bennett.  Furthermore, Bennett
  virtually conceded below  that she had never had any conversations with
  Katims during the criminal case when Stowell was  not present.  Therefore,
  Katims received no "confidential communications" which he might use  to
  Bennett's disadvantage.  See V.R.E. 502(a)(4) ("a communication is
  `confidential' if not  intended to be disclosed to third persons"); State
  v. Martin,