Opinion ID: 1802093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Exception to Final Order Requirement

Text: Generally, in the absence of a final order from which an appeal may be taken, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Currie v. Chief School Bus Serv., supra ; In re Adoption of Krystal P. & Kile P., 248 Neb. 907, 540 N.W.2d 312 (1995). However, we must determine whether any exceptions to the final order requirement apply that vest this court with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In CenTra, Inc. v. Chandler Ins. Co., 248 Neb. 844, 540 N.W.2d 318 (1995), this court held that when an appeal from an order denying disqualification of counsel involves issues collateral to the basic controversy, and when an appeal from a judgment dispositive of the entire case would not be likely to protect the client's interests, the party should seek mandamus or other interlocutory review. (Citing Maddocks v. Ricker, 403 Mass. 592, 531 N.E.2d 583 (1988).) However, the instant case involves the granting, not the denial, of a motion to disqualify counsel. The general rule is that mandamus is not a preventive remedy but essentially a coercive writ, one that commands performance of a duty and not desistance therefrom. State ex rel. Bates v. Morgan, 154 Neb. 234, 47 N.W.2d 512 (1951). See, also, 52 Am.Jur.2d Mandamus § 9 (1970). As such, the Griffithses could not bring an original action for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the district court to vacate its order of disqualification. However, in Maddocks v. Ricker, supra , cited with approval in CenTra, Inc. v. Chandler Ins. Co., supra , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that if the appeal from an order of disqualification involves issues collateral to the basic controversy and if an appeal from a judgment dispositive of the entire case would not be likely to protect the client's interests, interlocutory review is appropriate. 403 Mass. at 600, 531 N.E.2d at 588. In order to provide both parties (movant and nonmovant) with an equal opportunity to seek interlocutory review of an attorney disqualification decision, we adopt the rule articulated in Maddocks as an exception to the final order requirement. We determine that the instant appeal from the district court's order of disqualification involves issues collateral to the underlying action to rescind the purchase agreement. Delaying the appeal until a dispositive judgment on the underlying controversy has been rendered would not likely protect the Griffithses' interests in the counsel of their own choosing and in the time and expense associated with hiring new counsel. Thus, we conclude that this court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant appeal under the Maddocks exception to the final order requirement.