In Kingdom Ins. Group, LLC v. Cutler & Associates, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35257 (M.D. Ga., Mar. 31, 2011). Plaintiff’s counsel Bruyere and Kane were disqualified from acting as counsel on ethical reasoning.
The two attorneys worked together to represent the defendant and plaintiff in a previous case. In the second case the attorneys are working together to represent the plaintiff who is suing the defendant Cutler. We have to first look at the two cases.
In the present case, Kingdom Insurance group put up a claim for relief against Cutler and Associates. Kingdom Insurance entered into an agreement with Cutler to market the insurance products of United Healthcare Insurance Company. Cutler acted as an FMO for United to recruit agencies to sell products to consumers and to find other agents to sell United’s products. One of Cutler’s recruitments was Kingdom Insurance. Kingdom claimed that Cutler did not fulfill its duties. They said that Cutler was not prepared to manage workflow or in finding new agents. Kingdom ended up losing thousands of sales due to Cutler. Kingdom Insurance accused Cutler of a number of claims including fraud, conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
In the previous case, Cutler and Kingdom were sued by Peek Performance Inc. in North Carolina because they failed to deliver computer equipment that would have assisted with commission payments and not managing appointments appropriately.
Cutler now wants Bruyere and Kane disqualified from acting as counsel to Kingdom because they represented him in the North Carolina case. Cutler wants them disqualified for violating their ethical duty owed to former clients.
Attorneys practicing in Georgia must adhere to the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct as well as the American Bar Associates Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(a) states “a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.”
The pending case against Cutler is strongly related to Bruyere and Kane’s representation of Cutler and Kingdom in the previous North Carolina case. Even if the information between the two cases were limited there is a strong connection that should be avoided if possible.
The Cutler Defendants’ motion to disqualify Bruyere and Kane from acting as counsel in this case is granted. All lawyers associated in the firm with Bruyere and Kane are also disqualified.
No comments:
Post a Comment