Court Opinion

ID: 9520931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:53:25.137761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:15.593569
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE JIGANTI, dissenting: The Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility states that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly *** (1) reveal a confidence or secret of his client ***.” (87 Ill. 2d R. 4 — 101(b)(1).) The law is quite clear that once it is shown that the subject matter of a prior representation is substantially related to that of a subsequent adverse representation, the attorney may not represent the new client in the present litigation. (La Salle National Bank v. Triumvera Homeowners Association (1982), 109 Ill. App. 3d 654, 440 N.E.2d 1073; Skokie Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 452 N.E.2d 804.) This is based on the irrebuttable presumption that when an attorney represents a client the attorney obtains confidences of his client during the course of that representation. As such, this presumption avoids compelling the former client to prove what confidences or secrets were revealed. (Skokie Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 1055-56; Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (2d Cir. 1975), 518 F.2d 751, 754.) Walter J. O’Brien had previously been removed as attorney for Bruck because the court found that O’Brien represented the plaintiff on a substantially related matter. It is alleged in the plaintiff’s motion that in fact Guerard represented the plaintiff in the prior representation. The evidence does not support that contention. Guerard’s only involvement with the plaintiff was that when the plaintiff sought to discharge O’Brien as Brack’s counsel Guerard represented O’Brien in the proceeding. Even though Guerard did not previously represent the plaintiff he may still be barred from representing Brack in this proceeding because of another presumption in which the law engages, that is, the presumption that members of a law firm share confidences and secrets of their client. (Skokie Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 452 N.E.2d 804; Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (2d Cir. 1975), 518 F.2d 751.) Consequently, it is presumed that since O’Brien formerly represented the plaintiff he had the plaintiff’s confidences and secrets and he shared those with Guerard when Guerard was a member of O’Brien’s law firm. It is further presumed, therefore, that Guerard in turn will share those confidences and secrets with his new law firm of Konewko, Drenk & Thompson. Most significantly for the instant case, this evidentiary presumption that members of a law firm share client confidences is rebuttable. (Skokie Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 1056, 452 N.E.2d 804; Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (2d Cir. 1975), 518 F.2d 751, 754.) Screening or erecting the metaphorical “Chinese wall” around the .“infected” attorney is an acceptable method of rebutting this presumption. (Armstrong v. McAlpin (2d Cir. 1980), 625 F.2d 433, 442; Kesselhaut v. United States (U.S. Ct. Cl. 1977), 555 F.2d 791, 793; Kadish v. Commodity Futures Trading Com. (N.D. Ill. 1982), 548 F. Supp. 1030.) Bruck specifically contended that Guerard would be screened, but never received a hearing on his motion. I believe that this matter should be remanded back to the trial court for a hearing on Brack’s contention that Guerard will be screened from the instant case in his new law firm. The court should consider the practical aspects of how screening would work, such as what will Guerard’s access be to relevant files, whether he will derive any remuneration from his firm’s representation of the defendant, and what measures have been taken to prevent Guerard from discussing the matter with other members of the law firm. Any conclusion about the effectiveness of the screening must be measured against the factual setting in this case. It must be remembered that the only evidence in the record concerning Guerard’s involvement is that he was associated with O’Brien. He never represented the plaintiff. The attorney closest to this case was O’Brien. In fact, O’Brien, while acknowledging that he had a long association with the plaintiff in business, denied that he represented the plaintiff. Thus, Guerard’s relationship with this litigant is evanescent. The court in considering this matter must bear in mind that there is a countervailing interest of the defendant’s right to be represented by counsel of his choice. (Skokie Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 452 N.E.2d 804; Kadish v. Commodity Futures Trading Corp. (N.D. Ill. 1982), 548 F. Supp. 1030.) He has already been deprived of one attorney in this proceeding. Further, there is a suggestion in some of these cases, and a specific allegation in this case, that these motions are made for tactical reasons or for harassment. (See Board of Education v. Nyquist (2d Cir. 1979), 590 F.2d 1241.) It is alleged that at the time plaintiff’s counsel was advised that Guerard was about to join the new law firm the plaintiff raised no objection concerning Guerard until after settlement negotiations foundered. If Guerard’s new law firm is disqualified from this case, this proceeding, which has already existed for far too many years, will be prolonged a great deal longer when new counsel will have to become acquainted with the matter. Additional expenses, if counsel is forced to withdraw, may be considerable. The courts have counselled restraint in these matters and disqualification should be ordered when the attorney’s conduct will taint the underlying trial. (Armstrong v. McAlpin (2d Cir. 1980), 625 F.2d 433, 445; Board of Education v. Nyquist (2d Cir. 1979), 590 F.2d 1241, 1242.) In ethical matters, the lines are fine and we cannot paint in broad strokes. (United States v. Standard Oil Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1955), 136 F. Supp. 345, 367; Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (2d Cir. 1977), 567 F.2d 225, 227.) Disqualification is harsh when there is truly no unethical conduct and the matter is one of the superficial appearance of evil. (Kesselhaut v. United States (U.S. Ct. Cl. 1977), 555 F.2d 791, 793; see Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co. (7th Cir. 1982), 689 F.2d 715, 720-21.) It is only after a consideration of the screening procedures and a realistic consideration of the individual case that the delicate balance between the need to maintain the highest ethical standard and the right to be represented by freely chosen counsel that the decision in this case should be made. Emle Industries, Inc. v. Patentex, Inc. (2d Cir. 1973), 478 F.2d 562, 564-65; Skokie Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 1043, 1058, 452 N.E.2d 804. I would reverse and remand.