UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RAGEN H. HATCHER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-353-PRC

)

GARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL )

CORPORATION, )

)

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defendant’s Counsel [DE

79], filed by Plaintiff Ragen H. Hatcher on April 1, 2016. Defendant Gary Community School

Corporation filed a response on April 15, 2016. Plaintiff has not filed a reply, and the time to do so

has passed.

Plaintiff moves to disqualify the law firm representing Defendant, Robert L. Lewis &

Associates, citing Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a), which provides:

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a

necessary witness unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in

the case; or

(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the

client.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s

firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7

or Rule 1.9.

Ind. R. Prof’l Conduct 3.7. “In determining whether to disqualify counsel, a court is directed by Rule

3.7 to conduct a balancing between the interests of the client and those interests of the opposing

party.” Hutchinson v. Spanierman, 190 F.3d 815, 828 (7th Cir. 1999) (discussing the commentary
to Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7). The disqualification of an attorney is a “drastic

measure which courts should hesitate to impose except when absolutely necessary.” Owen v.

Wangerin, 985 F.2d 312, 317 (7th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff represents that Attorney Lewis will be called as a witness in this case on a contested

question of fact regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s termination from her employment as attorney

for Defendant. Plaintiff represents that Defendant indicated to her in a letter of termination that she

was being terminated due to financial constraints; however, shortly after she was terminated,

Attorney Lewis and his law firm were employed to provide legal services for Defendant at

approximately three times the rate that Plaintiff was paid. Plaintiff reasons that the testimony

Attorney Lewis may provide is not related to the nature and value of legal services in this case but

rather to the hiring of his law firm and the overall costs of legal services in relation to Plaintiff’s

employment. Plaintiff reasons that, because Defendant is one of the largest school corporations in

the State of Indiana, it would not be a hardship on Defendant to hire new counsel to defend this case.

Defendant objects on the basis that disqualification of Attorney Lewis and his firm would

provide a substantial hardship on Defendant. Defendant notes that Plaintiff filed her Complaint on

September 30, 2013, and that trial is less than a year away.

The Court finds that disqualification of the law firm Robert L. Lewis & Associates at this

time would provide a substantial hardship to Defendant. Attorney Tracy A. Coleman of the law firm

Robert L. Lewis & Associates entered her appearance on behalf of Defendant on November 12,

2013, and has continued to represent Defendant throughout this litigation without objection from

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has known the facts regarding the retention of Robert L. Lewis & Associates by

Defendant following her termination since the time she filed her Complaint. The discovery deadline

of May 27, 2016, is only a month away, and a jury trial is set for January 9, 2017. Plaintiff offers

2
no explanation as to why she waited almost two and a half years to move to disqualify the law firm.

In addition, Plaintiff would not be prejudiced because she can request discovery directly from

Defendant regarding the rates at which it hired legal counsel following Plaintiff’s termination.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defendant’s

Counsel [DE 79].

SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3