 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada12/19/2000
and discovery documents, to prepare for court appearances, to take depositions and to meet with defense counsel. Mehesan utilized the services of a Gillock firm secretary and a Gillock firm paralegal. He consulted with Julie Mersch, a Gillock firm associate involved in the Browns' action against Dr. Thalgott, and worked directly with Gillock on trial preparation.
Although the district court based its decision on the need to avoid the appearance of impropriety, it did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying Mehesan. A careful review of the district court's order reveals that the district court performed exactly the kind of analysis advocated by Essex and the first prong of Shelton and Cronin. The court emphasized that it rejected a per se double imputation rule. It stated:
"This court does not rule on the particular test that should be applied in the co-counsel situation. An examination of the relationship between co-counsels in this case will suffice.
Mr. Mehesan worked closely with members of Mr. Gillock's law firm preparing for this case. From a review of the record it seems Mr. Mehesan was intimately involved in much of the discovery in this case, including appearing at most of the depositions. Mr. Gillock indicated his involvement in these pretrial activities was limited to reports from . . . Mersch . . . . Despite this lack of involvement in pretrial matters, Mr. Gillock was listed as lead counsel for trial. As lead counsel Mr. Gillock must have worked closely with Mr. Mehesan in preparation for, at least, the actual trial . . . . It naturally flows that all aspects of this case were discussed between the two, and the court would assume that as professionals they necessarily had to have a correlated case preparation to perform their respective functions to participate in the trial as co-counsel . . . . his court . . . does feel the closeness of this association requires Mr. Mehesan's disqualification to stand . . . ."
Since the district court's decision to disqualify Mehesan was within its discretion, and since it is evident from the above that the district court properly exercised its discretion, I would deny the petition.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|