## Facts

- Monica Renee Williams was shot and killed on January 3, 2010, at an apartment complex managed by UFRA–Sexton, LP and Signature Management Corporation.
- Belinda Ann Hodge, as administratrix of Williams’s estate and guardian of Williams’s son, retained counsel to pursue claims arising from the death.
- While employed by plaintiff’s counsel’s firm, paralegal Kristi Bussey worked extensively on the matter, investigated the incident and premises, communicated regularly with Hodge about the case and strategy, attended all in-person meetings between Hodge and counsel, and received substantial confidential information.
- UFRA–Sexton’s insurer retained defense counsel’s firm to defend the matter in March 2010.
- Bussey later left plaintiff’s counsel’s firm and was hired as a paralegal at the defense firm; the conflict was not identified at hiring.
- After Bussey realized the defense firm was handling the same matter, she reported it to supervisors; the defense firm implemented screening measures barring her from working on or accessing the matter and requiring nondisclosure of confidences.
- The defense firm did not notify plaintiff’s counsel of the conflict until months later.
- Plaintiff moved to disqualify the defense firm; the trial court denied the motion based on the screen’s adequacy, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a law firm must be disqualified when a nonlawyer employee with material confidential information about a matter moves to a firm representing the opposing party, or whether effective screening can prevent imputed disqualification.
2. Whether the new firm must promptly disclose the conflict and screening measures to opposing counsel, and what remedy follows if disclosure was not prompt.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a nonlawyer’s conflict of interest may be cured through proper screening, so disqualification of the entire firm is not automatic.
- The Court affirmed the determination that the screening measures used in this case were effective and appropriate to protect confidential information.
- The Court remanded for a hearing to determine whether the defense firm promptly disclosed the conflict to plaintiff’s counsel and, depending on that finding, what remedy is appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Nonlawyer staff are obligated to protect client confidences, and their possession of confidential information can create conflicts when they change firms.
- A nonlawyer’s conflict can be addressed by timely and effective screening that:
  - prevents the nonlawyer from working on, discussing, or accessing the matter; and
  - is implemented and enforced within the firm to prevent disclosure of confidential information.
- Screening alone is not sufficient; the new firm must also promptly disclose the conflict and the screening measures to affected parties or opposing counsel.
- When prompt disclosure is disputed, the trial court must make factual findings and determine an appropriate remedy.

## Conclusion

The court approved screening as a means to avoid firm-wide disqualification when a conflicted nonlawyer changes sides, upheld the screen used here as adequate, and required further proceedings to decide whether delayed notice violated the prompt-disclosure requirement and warranted relief.


Hodge v. UFRA-Sexton, LP, 758 S.E.2d 314 (Ga. 2014)