## Facts

- Plaintiffs filed four consolidated federal product-liability actions against Firestone and other manufacturers, seeking compensatory and exemplary damages for injuries allegedly caused by defective multipiece truck tire rims.
- Plaintiffs’ lead counsel, John C. Risjord, was affiliated with a firm that had Home Insurance Co. as an occasional client.
- Firestone was insured by Home under a policy that covered only certain liabilities beyond a deductible and, according to Firestone, excluded some categories of damages.
- Firestone moved to disqualify Risjord, asserting a conflict of interest: ties to Home could incentivize plaintiffs’ counsel to frame claims to limit Home’s coverage and increase Firestone’s exposure.
- The district court required Risjord to withdraw unless both plaintiffs and Home consented; after consent was obtained, the court denied disqualification and allowed Risjord to continue.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel in a civil case is immediately appealable as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. Whether such an order qualifies for immediate appeal under the collateral-order doctrine.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that an order denying disqualification of opposing counsel is not immediately appealable under § 1291.
- The Court concluded the order does not satisfy the collateral-order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- The Court ruled that the court of appeals, having determined it lacked jurisdiction, erred by reaching the merits.
- The Court vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1291 generally permits appeals only from “final decisions”; interlocutory rulings are not appealable absent a recognized exception.
- Under the collateral-order doctrine, immediate appeal is limited to orders that (1) conclusively decide the question, (2) resolve an important issue separate from the merits, and (3) are effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.
- Denials of disqualification motions in civil cases fail the “effective unreviewability” requirement because any prejudice can ordinarily be remedied on appeal (e.g., vacatur and a new trial if the denial is deemed prejudicial error).
- Appellate courts must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction when § 1291 does not authorize immediate review; they may not reach the merits after finding jurisdiction absent.

## Conclusion

Orders denying motions to disqualify opposing counsel in civil cases are not immediately appealable under § 1291 because they can be adequately reviewed after final judgment; when jurisdiction is lacking, the proper appellate disposition is dismissal rather than a merits ruling.


Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981)