Court Opinion

ID: 9910044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 19:07:07.751857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:38.367704
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Williams v. Hung, 2023-Ohio-4540.]

                                COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                               EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

THOMAS WILLIAMS,                                    :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :
                                                                 No. 112645
                v.                                  :

MICHELLE HUNG, ET AL.,                              :

                Defendants-Appellants.              :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 14, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CV-22-971623

                                              Appearances:

                Novak LLP, and William J. Novak, for appellee.

                The Chandra Law Firm LLC, and Subodh Chandra, for
                appellants.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

                Defendants-appellants,           Harry   Williamson   (“Williamson”)   and

Attorney Brian Bardwell (“Attorney Bardwell”), appeal from the trial court’s

January 30, 2023 judgment disqualifying Attorney Bardwell from representing
Williamson.     For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further

proceedings.

Procedural History

               This action was filed by plaintiff-appellee, Thomas Williams

(“plaintiff”), in November 2022. In addition to Williamson and Attorney Bardwell

being named as defendants, plaintiff also named as a defendant Michelle Hung

(“Hung”), individually and in her official capacity as a Lorain County Commissioner.

               According to plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which was filed in

January 2023, Williamson was the 911 director for Lorain County, and while in that

position, had an illicit affair with Hung, who was one of his direct supervisors.

Williamson was terminated and Attorney Bardwell represented him in a Lorain

County action Williamson filed in regard to his termination.

               Plaintiff had been the Lorain County Administrator but was terminated

from his position. According to plaintiff’s amended complaint, Hung confided to

plaintiff that she was having an affair with Williamson, and plaintiff, in turn,

informed an assistant Lorain County prosecutor about the affair. Shortly thereafter,

plaintiff was terminated from his position. It is plaintiff’s contention in this action

that his termination was a retaliatory act on the part of the defendants. Attorney

Bardwell and Williamson are codefendants in this action and Attorney Bardwell

seeks to represent Williamson.

               Shortly after this case was initiated, plaintiff filed a motion for

“emergency status conference to disqualify” Attorney Bardwell from representing
Williamson.      As grounds for his disqualification request, plaintiff cited

Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a) and 4.4(a).     Williamson and Attorney Bardwell opposed

plaintiff’s motion.

              The trial court held a hearing in December 2022. As stated by the trial

court, the court “did not specify what the hearing was all about.” See record at 42,

Tr. 6. The issue of plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Attorney Bardwell was discussed,

but the trial court indicated that it was not going to decide it at that time. Rather,

the court implored Attorney Bardwell to seek advice from the Ohio Supreme Court’s

disciplinary counsel or some other expert. See id., Tr. 11-26; record at 19 (trial

court’s judgment holding the motion to disqualify in abeyance until December 28,

2022).    Thus, the December hearing was not an evidentiary hearing.              On

December 27, 2022, Williamson and Attorney Bardwell filed a motion for extension

of time to address the possibility of conflict in Attorney Bardwell representing

Williamson.

              On January 30, 2023, the trial court issued its judgment disqualifying

Attorney Bardwell. The substantive portion of the judgment reads as follows: “The

court determines that defendant Brian Bardwell is disqualified under ethical canons

from serving as legal counsel for his fellow defendant, Mr. Williamson.” The

following day, the trial court issued a judgment denying as moot Williamson and

Attorney Bardwell’s motion for an extension of time. Williamson and Attorney
Bardwell appeal from the trial court’s January 30, 2023 judgment,1 presenting the

following assignment of error for our review:

      I.     The trial court erred and abused its discretion when — citing no
             applicable professional-responsibility rule — it disqualified
             Appellant Harry Williamson’s chosen counsel Appellant Brian
             Bardwell after disregarding Plaintiff-Appellee Thomas
             Williams’s lack of standing and affording Appellants no due-
             process hearing.

Law and Analysis

               In law, there exists “the inherent power of the court to protect the

integrity of its proceedings.” Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., 27 Ohio St.3d

31, 34, 501 N.E.2d 617 (1986). This “includes the authority to dismiss an attorney

who cannot, or will not, take part in [the court’s proceedings] with a reasonable

degree of propriety.” Id.; see also Clucas v. Vojtech, 119 Ohio App.3d 475, 477, 695

N.E.2d 809 (9th Dist.1997) (“Thus the trial court possesses the authority to

disqualify an attorney from the representation of clients if the attorney cannot

conduct such representation in compliance with the Code of Professional

Responsibility.”). However, disqualification is a drastic measure that interferes with

a party’s right to choose his or her counsel and, therefore, should not be imposed

unless absolutely necessary. Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co., 81 Ohio

St.3d 1, 5, 688 N.E.2d 258 (1998).

      1 An order disqualifying an attorney from representing a client in a civil case is a

final, appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). See Douglass v. Priddy, 11th Dist.
Geauga No. 2013-G-3172, 2014-Ohio-2881, ¶ 15, citing Westfall v. Cross, 144 Ohio App.3d
211, 218-219, 759 N.E.2d 881 (7th Dist.2001).
               A trial court has wide discretion when considering motions to

disqualify counsel. Carr v. Acacia Country Club Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91292,

2009-Ohio-628, ¶ 18. Therefore, a trial court’s decision on whether to grant a

motion to disqualify will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Id., citing

155 N. High, Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 423, 426, 650 N.E.2d 869

(1995).

               A court abuses its discretion when it exercises its judgment in an

unwarranted way over a matter upon which it has discretionary authority. Johnson

v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35. “‘The

concept of ‘abuse of discretion’ as the basis for determining ‘error’ of the trial court

connotes the right to exercise a sound discretion.’” Id. at ¶ 37, quoting Rohde v.

Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 262 N.E.2d 685 (1970). A trial court may also abuse its

discretion where it “applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal

standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Thomas v. Cleveland, 176

Ohio App.3d 401, 2008-Ohio-1720, 892 N.E.2d 454, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).

               The Ohio Supreme Court has “never held that a court must hold an

evidentiary hearing before ruling on every motion for disqualification.” Dayton Bar

Assn. v. Parisi, 131 Ohio St.3d 345, 2012-Ohio-879, 965 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 15. Rather,

“a court must hold an evidentiary hearing and issue findings of fact in ruling on a

motion for disqualification of an individual or of an entire firm when an attorney

has left a law firm that represents one party to an action and has joined a firm that
represents an opposing party.” Id., citing Kala, 81 Ohio St.3d 1, 688 N.E.2d 258, at

syllabus.

               Likewise, this court has held that a hearing is not required on every

motion to disqualify counsel if the trial court has sufficient evidence to issue a ruling.

See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 107205 and 107373, 2019-Ohio-

990, ¶ 26; Landzberg v. 10630 Berea Rd., Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79574, 2002

Ohio App. LEXIS 1085, 13-14 (Mar. 14, 2002), citing Univ. Carnegie Med. Partners

Assn. v. Weiss & Kramer, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 65422, 1994 Ohio App.

LEXIS 2690, 4-5 (June 23, 1994).

               As grounds for his motion to disqualify Attorney Bardwell, plaintiff

cited Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a) and 4.4(a). Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a) governs conflicts of interest

and provides as follows:

      (a) A lawyer’s acceptance or continuation of representation of a client
      creates a conflict of interest if either of the following applies:

      (1) the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another
      current client;

      (2) there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s ability to consider,
      recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for that client
      will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another
      client, a former client, or a third person or by the lawyer’s own personal
      interests.

               The implication in this case is that Attorney Bardwell’s representation

of his codefendant Williamson could compromise his own personal interests vis-à-

vis Williamson’s interests in violation of subsection (2). This was discussed at the

December 2022 hearing, with Attorney Bardwell offering the following:
      Mr. Williamson is fully aware of what’s going on. We have discussed
      the conflict issue. He has consented to representation. I advised him
      to seek outside advice on whether to proceed and he has waived the
      conflict. It is a waivable conflict under 1.7 to the extent that conflict
      exists. Our position is no conflict exists.

Record at 42, Tr. 13.

              The court questioned Attorney Bardwell as to whether Williamson

sought independent advice. Attorney Bardwell responded, “yes,” that it was his

understanding that Williamson consulted with another attorney and “that he still

wishes to have me proceed with the representation.” Record at id., Tr. 14.

              Prof.Cond.R. 1.7 addresses waiver of conflict. The rule provides:

      (b) A lawyer shall not accept or continue the representation of a client
      if a conflict of interest would be created pursuant to division (a) of this
      rule, unless all of the following apply:

      (1) the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent
      representation to each affected client;

      (2) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing;

      (3) the representation is not precluded by division (c) of this rule.

Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(b).

              Subsection (c) of the rule provides as follows:

      (c) Even if each affected client consents, the lawyer shall not accept or
      continue the representation if either of the following applies:

      (1) the representation is prohibited by law;

      (2) the representation would involve the assertion of a claim by one
      client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same
      proceeding.

Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(c).
              Although Attorney Bardwell represented to the trial court that

Williamson understood the possibility of a conflict and consented to Attorney

Bardwell’s representation, there is no written consent in the record. Further,

plaintiff contended at the December 2022 hearing that the conflict was not waivable.

The trial court indicated it was not sure whether, if there is conflict, Williamson

could waive it. Attorney Bardwell was ordered to get advice on that issue. The trial

court’s judgment does not elucidate on its decision to grant plaintiff’s motion to

disqualify Attorney Bardwell. And there is nothing more in the record on this issue

other than plaintiff’s motion and Attorney Bardwell and Williamson’s opposition

thereto.

              The record is also lacking evidence in regard to plaintiff’s contention

that Attorney Bardwell should be disqualified under Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a). The rule

provides as follows:

      (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no
          substantial purpose other than to embarrass, harass, delay, or
          burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that
          violate the legal rights of such a person.

Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a).

              Plaintiff makes allegations of harassment in his complaint, but those

claims were not tested by the parties and the trial court did not indicate that that

was the basis for it granting the motion to disqualify Attorney Bardwell.

              We are mindful that “disqualification is a drastic measure.” Hollis v.

Hollis, 124 Ohio App.3d 481, 485, 706 N.E.2d 798 (8th Dist.1997), citing Musa v.
Gillette Communications of Ohio, Inc., 94 Ohio App.3d 529, 641 N.E.2d 233

(8th Dist.1994); see also Kala, 81 Ohio St.3d at 5, 688 N.E.2d 258. On this record,

we are unable to determine whether the court’s decision was within its discretion or

an abuse of its discretion. Although a hearing is generally not mandated in these

types of cases, it may be necessary here for development of the record. We therefore,

remand this case for further clarification — via written findings, an evidentiary

hearing, or both.

              Reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR