Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00670/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00670-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark C. Metzger

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Daniel LeBlanc, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-CV-670-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel (doc. 42),

Defendants' Response (doc. 48), and Plaintiff's Reply (doc. 55).

Plaintiff Mark Metzger entered into two agreements with defendant Icex Holdings,

Ltd., Inc. (hereinafter "Icex"). This action arises substantially out of those agreements.

Metzger asserts that he entered into an attorney-client relationship with Michael Ferrin,

which arose out of a series of meetings in which Metzger alleges that he received legal

advice from Ferrin with regard to the agreements. Motion to Dismiss at 3-5. In contrast,

Icex argues that Metzger was merely a third-party at meetings in which Ferrin gave legal

advice to Vincent Shaker, and that Ferrin never gave legal advice to Metzger, who was never

Ferrin's client nor prospective client. Response at 2-5.

Icex is represented in this litigation by Ferrin's law partner, Scott Gibson, of their firm,

Gibson, Ferrin & Riggs, PLC (hereinafter "GFR"). Metzger moves to disqualify Gibson and

Case 2:05-cv-00670-FJM Document 60 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

GFR, arguing that because Metzger was either Ferrin's client or prospective client, that

pursuant to Rule 1.9 or Rule 1.18 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Ferrin is

barred from representing Icex; and, pursuant to Rule 1.10, the conflict of interest is imputed

to the entire firm, therefore disqualifying Gibson and GFR. Motion to Dismiss at 5-9.

Metzger also argues that because Ferrin is precluded from representing Icex pursuant to Rule

1.9, and Ferrin will be called as witness to testify with regard to the agreements, the entire

firm should be disqualified pursuant to Rule 3.7. Id. at 9-10.

Attorneys practicing before the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona are regulated by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. LRCiv 83.2(d). 

However, the "violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant . . . [the] disqualification

of a lawyer in pending litigation." Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble ¶ 20.

We must balance the concerns of professional integrity and the privacy of the alleged

attorney-client relationship with the defendant's interest in proceeding with counsel of its

choice, and accordingly, we hesitate before imposing the "drastic measure" of

disqualification of an attorney, and the more drastic measure of the disqualification of an

entire firm. Schiessle v. Stephens, 717 F.2d 417, 419 (7th Cir. 1983). See In re County

of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, before ordering

disqualification, we require not only that a rule of professional conduct was violated, but

that the violation will cause the movant harm in this action, therefore making the

disqualification "absolutely necessary." Schiessle, 717 F.2d at 419 (quoting Freeman v.

Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689 F.2d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 1982)). Metzger fails to

establish that any significant harm will arise from the alleged ethical violations.

With regard to Metzger's conflict of interest claim, Metzger argues that the

information that Ferrin learned from him could cause him significant harm if revealed to

Gibson, and further, that he "would suffer severe prejudice" if Ferrin "is allowed to tell

the jury about discussions that Mr. Metzger believed were shared in the context of an

attorney-client relationship." Motion to Dismiss at 8. However, Metzger waives any

right to confidentiality and attorney-client privilege associated with his discussions with

Case 2:05-cv-00670-FJM Document 60 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Metzger argues that Icex violated Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in

disclosing the settlement contents of this letter. Reply at 5-6. However, Rule 408 merely

bars the use of settlement offers or negotiations for the purpose of proving liability, and

"does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose."

- 3 -

Ferrin, and asserts that he will explore the discussions by deposing Ferrin and examining

him at trial. Motion to Dismiss at 6. Metzger could not possibly be impermissibly

prejudiced by testimony that he intends to elicit.

Metzger also argues that because Ferrin will be forced to testify to information that

is harmful to Icex's interests, or in the alternative to commit perjury, "all parties will be

prejudiced by a likely (and likely awkward) examination of Mr. Ferrin by Mr. Gibson." 

Motion to Dismiss at 10. Possible awkwardness is an insufficient reason to disqualify

counsel. Furthermore, if this matter goes to trial, Metzger's counsel could, through

examination, alert the jury to Ferrin's partnership with Gibson.

The alleged violation of the rules of professional conduct will not cause Metzger

any significant harm in this action. Moreover, we are skeptical of Metzger's intent in

filing his motion at this time, and fear that he may have attempted to use the rules of

professional conduct as a procedural tool to extract a favorable settlement out of Icex. 

Metzger raised the issue of the conflict of interest more than five months after learning

that Icex is represented by GFR, in which Ferrin is a name partner. Metzger's counsel,

Brian Shulman, raised the issue in a letter that dealt substantially with the prospect of

settlement. Shulman wrote, "As we sort through the disqualification issue, and you get to

us the document discovery, I will raise in earnest the possibility of settlement."1

Response, Exhibit D at 2. The timing may be coincidental, but ironically, it forces us to

consider the propriety of Metzger's attorney's actions.

Because plaintiff failed to assert any significant harm arising out of the alleged

ethical violation, we need not rule on whether Gibson or GFR violated the Arizona Rules

of Professional Conduct.

Case 2:05-cv-00670-FJM Document 60 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify

Defendant's Counsel (doc. 42).

DATED this 20th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00670-FJM Document 60 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 4