Opinion ID: 2320993
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Substantially Related Prong

Text: [¶ 9] A three-part test is utilized to determine whether the prior and present representations are substantially related: [First], the trial judge must make a factual reconstruction of the scope of the prior legal representation. Second, it must be determined whether it is reasonable to infer that the confidential information allegedly given would have been to a lawyer representing a client in those matters. [Third], it must be determined whether that information is relevant to the issues raised in the litigation pending against the former client. Adam, 644 A.2d at 463 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 10] Applying the first part of the test, the court's factual reconstruction of the scope of the personal injury action is supported by competent evidence. The court determined that the prior representation was a personal injury action seeking damages for personal injury, medical expenses, and emotional harm. The court further determined that the case involved questions of Nadine's health, prior injuries, work history, and earning capacity. These findings are supported directly by the testimony of Nadine as recounted in the court's order settling the record. [¶ 11] The second step is an inferential inquiry that first requires a determination of whether information allegedly given to the attorney is confidential. A separate rule governs whether information is confidential. Pursuant to M. Bar R. 3.6(h), an attorney may not knowingly disclose or use information that is not generally known without informed consent, and: (i) Is protected by the attorney-client privilege in any jurisdiction relevant to the representation; (ii) Is information gained in the course of representation of a client or former client for which that client or former client has requested confidential treatment; (iii) Is information gained in the course of representation of the client or former client and the disclosure of which would be detrimental to a material interest of the client or former client; or . . . . M. Bar R. 3.6(h)(1). [¶ 12] The 2005 advisory note to Maine Bar Rule 3.6 explicitly states that subsection (iii) operates to keep information confidential even in the absence of a specific request for confidential treatment. Pursuant to subsection (iii), the information Nadine conveyed to Spurling during the course of the personal injury action concerning her health and injury history is confidential even though she did not specifically request Spurling to keep it in confidence. An individual's medical history is not the type of information that is generally known. Indeed, one expects it to be kept confidential. Disclosing the information about her medical history could be used to leverage greater parental rights and responsibilities in favor of John, and the extent of Nadine's physical injuries could become contested in determining her income potential to calculate an amount of spousal support. See 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(2)(A) (2006). [¶ 13] The information about Nadine's income earning history and capacity is also confidential pursuant to subsection (iii). It is not information that is generally known; it does not appear from the record that her salary at any of her employers would have been public information. This information could be disclosed to Nadine's detriment, as could her health information in determining spousal support. [¶ 14] In addition to the factual information Spurling acquired about Nadine's health and earning history during the course of the personal injury representation, Spurling also acquired information about the way in which Nadine handled the litigation process. Pursuant to subsection (iii), this information is also confidential. We have held that confidences could include information concerning a client's ability to deal with the stress of litigation. Adam, 644 A.2d at 464. [¶ 15] An attorney representing a client in a personal injury action involving significant representation would learn confidential information about the way in which his or her client handles the stress of litigation. In the present case, for over two years Spurling observed Nadine's reaction to the numerous tribulations of the litigation process. Spurling personally observed: Nadine's ability to testify under oath, her reactions to her adversary, her patience with the protracted process, her ability to accept compromise, her ability to handle stress, and the way in which she relates to her attorney. Disclosing knowledge of Nadine's strengths and weaknesses in these areas would be detrimental to her interests in another litigation, particularly in a contentious divorce action. [¶ 16] The second step of the substantially related test requires finding not only that alleged information exchanged was confidential, but also that it is reasonable to infer that the confidential information would have been given to the lawyer representing the client in the previous matter. In the present case, the inference is more than reasonable. It is reasonable to infer that Spurling would have acquired information concerning Nadine's health and income history because she testified to that fact. Even in the absence of the testimony, such knowledge is essential to an attorney representing a client in a personal injury action and it is easily inferred that it would have been given to Spurling. Likewise, it is easy to infer that Spurling would have acquired the confidential information concerning how Nadine handled the litigation because he observed her throughout the process. [¶ 17] The third and final step of the test requires determining whether the confidential information acquired in the prior representation is relevant to the issues raised in the present representation. As explicated above, the confidential information concerning Nadine's mental and physical health would be relevant to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The confidential information concerning Nadine's ability to deal with the issues of litigation is relevant to the present divorce action which is in litigation. Information concerning Nadine's mental and physical health is potentially relevant to the determination of her earning capacity for purposes of child support. It is also potentially relevant to the property distribution, see 19-A M.R.S. § 953(1)(C) (2006), and an award of attorney fees. [¶ 18] Because there is competent evidence to support all three parts of the substantially related test, the court did not clearly err in determining that the personal injury action and the present divorce action are substantially related. This finding alone is enough to support the court's disqualification of Spurling.