Opinion ID: 2617549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conflict of interest and evidentiary issues

Text: The decision to grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Rose v. Rose, 849 P.2d 1321, 1325 (Wyo.1993) ( quoting Weaver v. Millard, 120 Idaho 692, 819 P.2d 110, 114-15 (1991)). We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the district court exceeds the bounds of reason or commits an error of law. Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo.1993). Admission of evidence is also left to the sound discretion of the district court. Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703, 712 (Wyo.1993). Counsel for the Town and the County filed a Certification as to Compliance With Rule 1.7, Rules of Professional Conduct For Attorneys At Law with the district court. In chambers, the district court said there [is] little question in the Court's mind that [counsel] [has] authorization from attorneys for both entities [to] provide this dual representation. The district court found that the interests of the Town and the County were not so adverse that counsel's representation of either of his clients was compromised. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the dual representation. Shisler also claims she was prejudiced when the district court allowed counsel, representing both the Town and the County, to offer testimony from each defendant that maintenance of the Library was the other defendant's responsibility. Shisler contends this testimony created confusion and tainted the evidence the jury was to consider. The record reveals no abuse of discretion in this regard and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb an evidentiary ruling on appeal. Haderlie, 866 P.2d at 712.