## Facts

- John J. Carey and Joseph P. Danis were lawyers who previously worked at a firm that defended Chrysler Corporation in nationwide class actions involving alleged defects in Chrysler minivan door latches.
- In that work, Carey and Danis helped develop Chrysler’s approach to defending product-related class actions, including negotiation positions, internal evaluations, and coordinated litigation planning used across multiple class actions.
- They had access to confidential communications and assessments from Chrysler’s in-house counsel, participated in interviews and depositions of witnesses, and learned Chrysler’s preferences for retaining and using certain expert witnesses.
- After leaving the defense firm, Carey and Danis represented plaintiffs suing Chrysler in a class action alleging defects in a minivan’s antilock-braking system (ABS) and shared information with other plaintiff-side lawyers handling similar cases.
- Chrysler’s in-house counsel testified that the information Carey and Danis obtained while defending the door-latch cases would be useful to plaintiffs prosecuting other Chrysler minivan class actions, even when the alleged defect involved a different component, because Chrysler’s method of handling such class actions was largely the same.
- Missouri’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel filed a multi-count information charging Carey and Danis with professional misconduct based on (1) the former-client conflict created by suing Chrysler in a substantially related matter and (2) allegedly false or misleading discovery responses made in later litigation brought by Chrysler against them for breach of fiduciary duty.
- A disciplinary hearing panel issued findings and recommendations, but the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the record independently and made its own findings and conclusions.

## Issues

1. Did Carey and Danis violate Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.9(a) by representing plaintiffs against former client Chrysler in a matter “substantially related” to their prior Chrysler defense work and materially adverse to Chrysler without Chrysler’s consent?
2. Did Carey and Danis commit additional misconduct by giving false or misleading discovery responses about their prior Chrysler work and access to confidential information, violating duties of candor, honesty, and fairness in discovery?
3. What discipline was appropriate to protect the public and the legal profession?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri found that Carey and Danis committed professional misconduct by representing interests materially adverse to former client Chrysler in a substantially related matter without Chrysler’s informed consent, violating Rule 4-1.9(a) and Rule 4-8.4(a).
- The court also found that Carey and Danis engaged in misconduct through false or misleading discovery responses, violating Rule 4-3.3(a)(1), Rule 4-8.4(c), Rule 4-8.4(d), Rule 4-3.4(a), and Rule 4-3.4(d).
- The court ordered that Carey and Danis be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with leave to apply for reinstatement no sooner than one year from the date of the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not represent a new client against a former client in the same or a substantially related matter when the new representation is materially adverse to the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent. (Rule 4-1.9(a).)
- Matters can be “substantially related” even when the specific product component differs, if the lawyer previously obtained confidential information about the former client’s recurring defense methods, litigation planning, witness evaluations, expert selection, and settlement approach that could be used against the former client.
- In attorney discipline proceedings, the Supreme Court of Missouri reviews the record independently and is not bound by a hearing panel’s recommendations; misconduct must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
- False statements to a tribunal and dishonest conduct in litigation, including materially false or misleading discovery responses or omissions, can violate the rules requiring truthfulness, fairness in discovery, and conduct consistent with the administration of justice. (Rules 4-3.3, 4-3.4, 4-8.4.)
- Discipline is imposed to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession; conflict-of-interest violations and dishonest discovery conduct may warrant significant suspension when they show a serious breach of fiduciary duty and litigation duties.

## Conclusion

In *In re John J. Carey*, the Supreme Court of Missouri disciplined Carey and Danis for switching sides against former client Chrysler in a substantially related minivan class action after having obtained confidential information about Chrysler’s class-action defense methods, and for later providing false or misleading discovery responses about their prior work and access to confidential materials; both attorneys were indefinitely suspended with the ability to seek reinstatement after one year.


In re John J. Carey, 89 S.W.3d 477 (2002)