Opinion ID: 2054171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Confidential Information

Text: Relying on In re Ferrante, 126 B.R. 642 (Bankr.D.Me.1991), [7] the trial court, having found that the two cases are not substantially related, nevertheless assumed, without making any factual findings, that there were communications made to Friedman & Babcock during the prior representation that bore on the current suit. In doing so, the court failed to properly apply the second prong of M.Bar R. 3.4(d)(1)(i). Rule 3.4 was amended in 1993 so that the first prong of the rule bars successive representation if the two matters are substantially related, while the second prong of the rule was left intact. Therefore, in order to assign meaning to all the words in the rule, the second prong must be interpreted to mean something other than that the court should assume the existence of confidential communications if the matters are substantially related. See State v. Leonard, 470 A.2d 1262, 1264 (Me.1984) (attach meaning to all the words in the statute). Maine's rule is more stringent than either the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) or the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1969). Other jurisdictions, whether following the rules, the code, or some amalgam of the two, generally determine whether the two proceedings are substantially related. If so, confidential communications are assumed, and the lawyer is disqualified. If the two proceedings are not related, the lawyer's only continuing duty to the former client is not to use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client. Model Rule 1.9(c)(1). Even stronger is Maine's rule which explicitly prohibits successive representation if there is a substantial relationship between the two proceedings or, in the alternative, if in the prior representation, the attorney acquired relevant, confidential information that may be used in the subsequent case. A motion for disqualification can be abused as a litigation tactic. See ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct §§ 51-206-07 (1994) (explaining the rejection of the appearance of impropriety standard in the Model Code). [L]awyers and litigants alike have caught on to the tactical advantage of disqualification motions, and some are not shy about using them anytime they think such a move will advance their own interests. Id. § 51-207. If a former client need merely allege that she made relevant confidential communications to her former attorney, then the rule will be an obvious vehicle for abuse. See also Ferrante, 126 B.R. at 649 (disqualification may be asserted improperly, for tactical reasons aimed to disrupt the opposition, to harass opposing counsel or to effect delay). In cases where the previous and current representation are not related, but the client alleges that the attorney acquired relevant, confidential information in the course of their previous relationship, a factual inquiry is necessary. [8] The court must make a factual determination whether the attorney challenged actually acquired relevant, confidential information through the previous representation. Confidential information may encompass more than direct communications from the client. The term includes both confidences  information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and secrets  other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or detrimental to the client. M.Bar R. 3.6(h)(5). It could include information concerning a client's ability to deal with the stress of litigation, or serious financial difficulties that would affect the client's ability to litigate. To disqualify the opponent's attorney based on Maine's bar rule for successive representation when the previous and current matters are not substantially related, the former client has the burden to show that the attorney actually acquired information that is both confidential and relevant to the second action, or that would give the second client an advantage in the action against the former client. Because the court did not make that determination, we vacate and remand for further consideration. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring.