Opinion ID: 2457042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: George

Text: Anderson also contends that George and the directors knew, as they originally alleged in their disqualification motions, that her attorneys were going to disparage Johnson & Gibbs's work product and that they could have and should have litigated that issue before Judge Tyson at the disqualification hearing in June 1995. Anderson claims that the directors' motion to disqualify before Judge Snodgrass was merely an attempt to secure another judge's determination of the very same issues Judge Tyson decided in the June 1995 hearing. George counters that Epic's and the directors' attempts to get Anderson's attorneys to voluntarily withdraw in accordance with the local federal district court rules caused the lapse of time between the McKool firm's appearance in September 1994 and the directors' filing their motion to disqualify in April 1995. George claims that not until Pennington's deposition in March 1995, did Anderson's attorneys directly acknowledge that they would refuse to withdraw under any circumstances. George claims that the directors filed their motion to disqualify as soon as these facts became apparent. George points out that after the federal court remanded the action to the state court, the directors promptly moved to disqualify Anderson's counsel in state court. George also asserts that the directors did not allege and litigate the disparagement of work product claim because, in a discovery response, Anderson stated that her claims did not involve disparagement of Johnson & Gibbs's legal services in 1988 and 1989. Moreover, Anderson's discovery responses stated that her claims were directed only at the director's compensation package and at Epic's sale price. George argues that it was not until the aborted trial in June 1996 that it became apparent to the directors, despite Anderson's assertions to the contrary, that Anderson was actually disparaging Johnson & Gibbs's 1988 work product. George asserts that there was a material difference between the issues in the June 1995 hearing and the October 1996 hearing. George claims the record supports the directors' position that they promptly and expeditiously asserted their disqualification claim on both occasions. The record shows that both Judge Tyson and Judge Snodgrass expressed concern that, like Epic, the directors had waived the right to assert disqualification. However, both Judge Tyson and Judge Snodgrass heard evidence on the merits of the disqualification that George and the directors urged. Judge Snodgrass, whose order is the focus of this mandamus, did not indicate that he based his final decision on waiver. According to the record, the waiver issue as regards to the directors was hotly disputed, with conflicting interpretations of the factual circumstances. Moreover, unlike Epic, the directors did not abandon their disqualification efforts. As a reviewing court, we may not resolve disputed factual matters in a mandamus proceeding. See Hooks, 808 S.W.2d at 60; Dikeman, 490 S.W.2d at 186-87. Because there is conflicting evidence in this case about the directors' alleged waiver, I would hold that we cannot conclude that George waived the right to complain about the trial court's disqualification ruling. See Tenneco, Inc., 925 S.W.2d at 643; Grant, 888 S.W.2d at 468. IV. DISQUALIFICATION OF ATTORNEYS On the merits of the disqualification issue, George asserts: that Epic and the directors were the clients that Johnson and Gibbs represented in 1988; that this litigation is adverse to them; that Anderson questions the validity of Johnson & Gibbs's services and work product; that the Jordaan and McKool firms possess confidential information they gained while representing Epic and the directors in Epic's formation in violation of Rule 1.05; and that this matter is substantially related to Epic's formation in 1988. Anderson's counsel argue that: neither Epic nor the directors, including George, were Johnson & Gibbs's clients in 1988; that AMI was the actual client; that Anderson, as assignee of Epic's claims, is not adverse to Epic; that Anderson is not questioning the validity of Johnson & Gibbs's services or work product; and that the information Anderson's attorneys possess is not confidential.