 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reed v. Hoosier Health Systems4/13/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
David Reed's ("Reed") attorneys were disqualified from representing him in Marion Superior Court. Reed brings this interlocutory appeal, raising the following restated issue for review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it disqualified Reed's attorneys. Concluding the trial court was within its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On January 26, 2001, Reed filed a complaint against Hoosier Health Systems, Inc. ("Hoosier Health"), Hoosier Living Centers, Inc. ("Hoosier Living"), Stuart Reed, and Michael Reed ("the Defendants"). Reed's complaint concerned a dispute among Hoosier Health and Hoosier Living's shareholders. David Shelton ("Shelton") and Scott Treadway ("Treadway") represented Reed.
On April 24, 2001, these litigants entered a division agreement and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On January 4, 2002, Reed refiled his complaint. Shelton and Treadway once again represented Reed but had since relocated their practice to Tabbert Hahn Earnest & Weddle, LLP ("Tabbert Hahn").
The Defendants informed Shelton and Treadway they had a conflict arising from Tabbert Hahn's representation of Hoosier Health and Hoosier Living in pending suits that involve medical malpractice claims and that were assigned by the OHIC Insurance Company ("OHIC"), which indemnifies Hoosier Health and Hoosier Living.
On March 7, 2002, the Defendants filed a motion to disqualify Shelton and Treadway. On May 29, 2002, a hearing was held, in which Reed presented his 154-page response to the Defendants on the morning of the hearing.
At the conclusion of an October 7, 2002 evidentiary hearing, the trial court made the following entry:
Parties appear by counsel; Parties agree to continue HRG. Plaintiff to Submit Evidence on or before October 21, 2002. [The Defendants] to respond on or before Nov. 10, 2002. If either party wants a hearing request to be made on or before Nov. 17, 2002. If no request for hearing by that date Court will decide issue based on submissions of the parties.
Appellees' App. p. 4. Reed did not request an additional evidentiary hearing.
On October 27, 2003, the trial court granted the Defendants' Motion to Disqualify. The trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal on December 22, 2003, and this court has since acquired jurisdiction.
Discussion and Decision
A trial court may disqualify an attorney for a violation of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct ("IRPC"). Gerald v. Turnlock Plumbing, Heating, & Cooling, LLC, 768 N.E.2d 498, 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Wills, 717 N.E.2d 151, 154 (Ind. 1999)). The trial court's decision to disqualify an attorney is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Roberton v. Wittenmyer, 736 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or if it has misinterpreted the law. State v. Willits, 773 N.E.2d 808, 811 (Ind. 2002).
IRPC 1.7(a) states in part:
(a)A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1)the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2)each client consents after consultation.
Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.7(a) (2004) (emphasis added). IRPC 1.10(a) states in part:
(a)While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall represent
Page 1 2 3 4 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|