## Facts

- Sher S. Kala retained the law firm Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber and attorney Michael Pearson to pursue employment-related claims against Aluminum Smelting & Refining Company, Inc.
- Aluminum Smelting was represented by the law firm Duvin, Cahn & Hutton.
- Pearson conducted substantial work for Kala, including representing him at deposition, performing most trial work, and continuing representation in the appeal after a directed verdict for Aluminum Smelting.
- While still representing Kala on appeal and seeking an extension for Kala’s appellate brief, Pearson negotiated employment with Duvin without informing Kala.
- Pearson left Spangenberg and joined Duvin, the firm representing Aluminum Smelting in the same dispute.
- Kala moved to disqualify Pearson and Duvin from representing Aluminum Smelting in the appeal.
- The court of appeals ordered disqualification of both Pearson and the entire Duvin firm.

## Issues

1. Whether an order granting or denying a motion to disqualify counsel is a final appealable order.
2. What standard governs primary disqualification of a lawyer who changes firms to the opposing side and imputed disqualification of the new firm.
3. Whether, and under what conditions, timely and adequate screening can prevent imputed disqualification of the new firm.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that an order granting or denying disqualification of counsel is a final appealable order.
- The court adopted a three-part, fact-based framework requiring an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact in lawyer-mobility disqualification motions.
- Pearson was disqualified because his prior representation was substantially related and he had significant personal involvement and knowledge of Kala’s case.
- The court rejected automatic firm-wide disqualification and remanded to determine whether Duvin’s screening measures were timely and adequate to rebut imputed disqualification.

## Legal Principles

- Courts have inherent authority to supervise lawyers appearing before them, including power to disqualify counsel to protect the integrity of proceedings.
- Client confidentiality is a core duty; where a lawyer’s former and current matters are substantially related, a presumption arises that client confidences are implicated.
- In lateral-move conflicts, courts must conduct an evidentiary hearing and apply a three-step analysis:
  - Determine whether the prior and current matters are substantially related.
  - If so, decide whether the presumption of shared confidences in the former firm is rebutted by proof the lawyer had no personal contact with or knowledge of the matter.
  - If the lawyer had such contact or knowledge, decide whether the new firm established timely and adequate screening to rebut imputation of confidences to the firm.
- Screening may defeat imputed disqualification only with a concrete factual showing; it is neither automatically sufficient nor irrelevant.

## Conclusion

Ohio required disqualification of a lawyer who moved to opposing counsel in the same substantially related matter, but held that the new firm is not automatically disqualified; instead, imputed disqualification turns on a hearing-based application of the substantial-relationship inquiry, rebuttable presumptions, and the adequacy and timing of screening.


Kala v. Aluminum Smelting & Refin. Co., 81 Ohio St. 3d 1, 688 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio 1998)