Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-2569" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2016/05/Confidentiality-stamp-300x208.jpg" alt="Confidentiality stamp" width="300" height="208">Courts often analyze motions to disqualify by balancing the need to uphold professional standards against the rights of clients to choose their lawyers freely.&nbsp; The New Jersey court of appeals struck that balance earlier this month&nbsp;in upholding the <a href="https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/appellate/unpublished/a1051-13.pdf?c=hf3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disqualification of&nbsp;a lawyer</a> who violated a confidentiality order, finding that the lawyer knowingly disobeyed a court order, among other violations.
Looking for class action plaintiffs
The lawyer sued a car dealership and others in a putative class action, alleging&nbsp;fraud and the violation of various state consumer statutes.&nbsp; The parties agreed on and the court entered a confidentiality order that allowed any party to designate confidential documents produced in discovery as &ldquo;Attorneys&rsquo; Eyes Only.&rdquo;
The confidentiality order mandated that the parties could use&nbsp;such material &ldquo;solely for purposes of the prosecution or defense of this action.&rdquo;
After several twists and turns, the suit was trimmed of its class allegations and proceeded solely against the dealership.
However, as the trial court wrote, &ldquo;lo and behold, after the dealer produced the documents under the confidentiality order, a new [class action] lawsuit was filed in [another] county,&rdquo; against the same defendant, based on the same theories, and initiated by the same lawyer, who admitted that she had used the &ldquo;Attorneys&rsquo; Eyes Only&rdquo; documents in soliciting the named class-action plaintiffs to file suit in the second action.
The lawyer claimed that this did not violate the confidentiality order; the trial court disagreed, and &ldquo;relieved [the lawyer] from serving as plaintiff&rsquo;s counsel&rdquo; because of the violation.&nbsp; The trial judge also referred the matter to the state Office of Attorney Ethics.&nbsp; Following the client&rsquo;s&nbsp;interlocutory appeal, the appellate division affirmed the disqualification order.
Inherent authority to impose DQ remedy
New Jersey&rsquo;s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), identical to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_4_fairness_to_opposing_party_counsel.html">Model Rule 3.4</a>(c), forbids a lawyer to &ldquo;knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.&rdquo;
The appeals court held that the lawyer knowingly used materials designated as &ldquo;Attorneys&rsquo; Eyes Only&rdquo; to solicit clients and to initiate a separate lawsuit against the car dealership, and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in using its inherent powers to sanction the lawyer for her ethical violation by disqualifying her.
Quoting from its prior&nbsp;holdings on balancing the need for ethical conduct against client choice, the court of appeals said that &ldquo;there is no right to demand to be represented by an attorney disqualified because of an ethical requirement.&rdquo;
&ldquo;We underscore that an attorney&rsquo;s failure to conform to his or her ethical obligations may imperil their client&rsquo;s right to counsel of their choice.&rdquo;
Not only did the lawyer&rsquo;s client lose out; the lawyer put her own license in jeopardy, with the court&rsquo;s referral to&nbsp;the state disciplinary agency.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Violating confidentiality order results in lawyer’s DQ and referral to state ethics board