Darrow v. PPL Elec. Utilities Corp., 2021 WL 5895163 (Pa. Super. 2021)

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reminds Law Firms to Pay Attention to Potential Conflicts

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently reviewed a law firm’s obligations to one of its attorney’s former clients pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(b) in Darrow v. PPL Elec. Utilities Corp., 2021 WL 5895163 (Pa. Super. 2021). The Superior Court discussed, inter alia, the factors a court should consider when disqualifying an attorney and its law firm from representing a current client with an adverse interest to that of a former client.

In Darrow, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed and remanded the trial court’s order, which denied the defendant’s motion to disqualify the law firm from representing the plaintiff in the matter. In reversing and remanding the order, the Superior Court precluded the law firm and its attorneys from representing the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit due to the law firm’s failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(b). 

Mr. Darrow initiated an action against PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL) because he suffered injuries when the vehicle he was driving collided with a utility pole and came into contact with a downed power line. The plaintiff retained an attorney at the law firm of Munley Law, P.C. to initiate the suit against PPL. Critically, the attorney at Munley Law had previously represented PPL at his prior law firm in numerous personal injury lawsuits. In deciding whether Munley Law was disqualified from representing the plaintiff, the Superior Court reviewed Munley Law’s conflict protocol under Rule 1.10(b). The Superior Court looked to non-precedential Pennsylvania decisions that have applied the factors set forth in Dworkin v. General Motors Corp., 906 F. Supp. 273 (E.D. Pa. 1995) to come to its conclusion.

The Superior Court held that the Dworkin factors weighed in favor of disqualifying Munley Law from representing the plaintiff. Among the factors that weighed in favor of disqualifying Munley Law was the fact that the attorney at Munley Law had a substantial relationship with PPL because he defended it in numerous lawsuits over a period of nearly two decades and, thus, was privy to propriety information and internal operations and litigation strategy. Additionally, the Munley Law, consisting of approximately ten attorneys, was a small firm, which was a “a detriment rather than an asset in implementing an effective screen” because there is more contact between attorneys. Furthermore, the Superior Court also noted that the timing of the enactment of an ethical wall was “troublesome” as Munley Law had no screening protocol in place between the time the attorney filed the action in June of 2017 until September 2019. Lastly, the features of the wall were inadequate as none of the attorneys signed a written screening protocol, the disqualified attorney had not seen any writing detailing the screening protocol, nor did he know what the screening protocol stated.

This case law is important because it provides guidance for practitioners when assessing potential conflicts with former clients and sets forth factors a court will consider in determining whether to disqualify a law firm and/or its attorneys from representation. The analysis employed by the Superior Court is a good resource to direct practitioners to review when advising them on the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 1.10(b), and making them aware of potential issues that may arise when assessing potential conflicts with former clients. 
 

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.