Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Luke (P) and his wife, Stephanie (P), were hunting. Stephanie (P) had a .308 Mossberg model 800 rifle (rifle). Ps allege that the rifle fell and struck Luke's (P) rifle and then discharged and shot Luke (P) in the face, causing serious and permanent injury. Luke (P) called Tarlow & Stonecipher and spoke with Weamer about a possible claim. Weamer spoke with Luke (P) for six to twelve minutes. After discussing the case with Luke (P), Weamer advised him that Tarlow & Stonecipher would not be interested in taking the case. Ps retained other counsel. Tarlow & Stonecipher later agreed to represent D as local counsel against Luke (P) in the litigation. Tarlow & Stonecipher ran a conflict check that revealed the phone conversation. Tarlow & Stonecipher determined that the phone conversation did not create a conflict. They disclosed the phone conversation to D's national counsel John Renzulli. Ps' counsel remained unaware of the telephone conversation. Renzulli deposed Stephanie (P) with an inquiry into other law firms that Ps may have consulted. Renzulli then aggressively questioned her implying that from the number of law firms she talked with who had refused the case, that there was really no case. Ps filed a motion to disqualify both Tarlow & Stonecipher and the Renzulli Law Firm. The District Court issued an order granting the motion to disqualify both Tarlow & Stonecipher and the Renzulli firm. It determined that there was a violation of Rule 1.20(b) and (c). The court found that the purpose of Renzulli's questioning was to intimidate and create an impression of a bad case. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co