## Facts

- Drs. R. Clarke Danforth and Donald P. Ullrich previously consulted Douglas Flygt of DeWitt, Porter, Huggett, Schumacher & Morgan, S.C. to form and structure entities to own and operate an MRI diagnostic facility.
- The prior work was transactional and organizational, involving complex entity relationships and business arrangements for diagnostic services.
- Jean C. Jesse, through her guardian ad litem, later sued Danforth and Ullrich for medical malpractice based on clinical treatment that occurred before and apart from the MRI-entity formation.
- Jesse retained Eric Farnsworth, another DeWitt lawyer, to prosecute the malpractice action after an internal conflict check did not identify the doctors as current clients.
- Danforth and Ullrich moved to disqualify DeWitt, arguing the prior representation was substantially related and risked misuse of confidential information (e.g., financial, operational, or insurance-related information).
- The circuit court denied disqualification and awarded statutory costs; the court of appeals reversed and ordered disqualification; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review limited to the disqualification question.

## Issues

1. Whether DeWitt had to be disqualified from representing the malpractice plaintiff because the firm previously performed corporate formation work involving the defendant physicians and related diagnostic entities.
2. Whether the prior corporate representation and the subsequent malpractice action were “substantially related” such that confidential information obtained earlier could reasonably be inferred to disadvantage the former clients in the later litigation.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The Court held DeWitt was not required to withdraw because the corporate formation matter was not substantially related to the malpractice claims.
- The Court found no adequate showing that DeWitt possessed confidential information from the prior representation that would materially advance the plaintiff’s malpractice case.
- The case was remanded to the circuit court with directions to reinstate DeWitt as plaintiffs’ counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Former-client disqualification requires a showing that the earlier and later matters are substantially related and that it is reasonable to infer the lawyer obtained confidential information that could be used to the former client’s disadvantage.
- The analysis must be tied to the subject matter of the prior engagement and the type of confidential information reasonably likely to have been obtained; generalized concerns and “might have learned” assertions are insufficient.
- Prior corporate or transactional work for physicians does not, by itself, bar later adverse representation in an unrelated malpractice action focused on medical diagnosis and treatment.
- Representation of an entity does not automatically create an attorney–client relationship with all shareholders, officers, or principals; the scope of the engagement controls the conflicts inquiry.
- Disqualification is an extreme remedy and should not be ordered without a clear showing of an actual conflict under established standards, given the risk of tactical misuse and the opposing party’s interest in chosen counsel.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a law firm’s prior corporate formation work connected to physicians and diagnostic entities did not require disqualification in a later, unrelated malpractice suit absent a substantial relationship between the matters and a concrete basis to infer material adverse use of confidential information.


Jesse ex rel. Reinecke v. Danforth, 169 Wis. 2d 229, 485 N.W.2d 63 (Wis. 1992)