## Facts

- Tysonia Babineaux worked for the City of Hammond, Louisiana as its Recreation Director.
- In July 2003, the City terminated Babineaux’s employment.
- Babineaux filed a federal employment-discrimination suit against the City and the mayor in his official capacity, asserting claims under Title VII and Louisiana employment-discrimination law.
- Babineaux retained Douglas D. Brown as her attorney.
- Before entering private practice, Brown served as an Assistant City Attorney for Hammond during a prior mayoral administration that ended on December 31, 2002.
- The City moved to disqualify Brown, pointing to a grievance Babineaux filed with the City in 2001 while Brown worked in the city attorney’s office.
- The City argued the 2001 grievance was materially similar to the later discrimination allegations and that Brown was connected to the grievance because the then-mayor copied him on two letters that addressed a confidential response to Babineaux’s complaint.
- Brown argued the lawsuit was based on events occurring after he left the City’s legal department, denied having any disqualifying involvement or confidential information from the 2001 grievance, and contended the motion was driven by hostility toward his private practice representing plaintiffs against the City.
- Brown also offered to amend the complaint to limit the suit to conduct occurring after he left government service.
- The motion before the court was solely whether Brown should be removed as Babineaux’s counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether the City showed a disqualifying conflict requiring Brown’s removal based on his prior government service and the asserted connection between Babineaux’s 2001 grievance and her later discrimination suit.
2. Whether the City made a sufficient factual showing that Brown obtained confidential government information connected to the earlier grievance that could be used against the City in the current litigation.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to disqualify Babineaux’s counsel.
- The City did not carry its burden to show that Brown’s prior work for the City involved the same matter, or a sufficiently related matter, in a way that warranted disqualification.
- The City’s showing that Brown possessed or could use confidential information was speculative; being copied on letters did not, without more, establish exposure to relevant confidences or a risk of unfair use.
- The court considered the timing of events (Brown’s departure before the termination) and Brown’s offer to limit the case to post-departure conduct as further reducing any overlap.
- Given the weak evidentiary basis and the disruptive effect of attorney removal, the court declined to impose the remedy.

## Legal Principles

- Courts apply the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct when evaluating attorney conflicts in federal cases seated in Louisiana, including rules addressing former government lawyers and conflicts tied to prior representations.
- Disqualification requires a specific factual showing; conjecture that a lawyer “must have learned” confidential information is not enough.
- Where the asserted conflict rests on a prior matter, the moving party must show a meaningful connection between the prior work and the current dispute, along with material adversity.
- For former government lawyers, disqualification may be appropriate if the lawyer participated personally and substantially in the same matter while in public service, or if the lawyer has relevant confidential government information that could be used to a party’s disadvantage.
- Motions to disqualify are closely scrutinized because they can be used for strategic advantage and because removal can delay proceedings and burden the represented party.
- A litigant’s interest in keeping chosen counsel is weighed against the need to protect client confidences and the fairness and integrity of the proceeding.

## Conclusion

In *Babineaux v. Foster*, the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the City’s request to remove the plaintiff’s lawyer, a former assistant city attorney, because the City did not present concrete evidence that counsel had personally handled a related prior matter or possessed relevant confidential information from a 2001 grievance that could be used in the later Title VII case stemming from a 2003 termination; the court also considered the time gap, counsel’s offer to narrow the claims to post-government conduct, and the disruption caused by disqualification.


Babineaux v. Foster, 2005 WL 711604 (2005)