## Facts

- Dr. Margo Kanaga, an obstetrician–gynecologist, sued Jane Harriman and Gannett Company for defamation based on an article Harriman wrote and a Gannett-owned newspaper published.
- The article reported that Kanaga had recommended a hysterectomy for a former patient and that another physician later concluded the hysterectomy was unnecessary.
- Kanaga alleged the article portrayed her as lacking skill and ethics and caused serious harm to her professional reputation and medical practice.
- Richards, Layton & Finger (RL&F) appeared for Harriman and Gannett and filed an answer on their behalf.
- Kanaga moved to disqualify RL&F because RL&F partner John Parkins had previously represented Kanaga in a medical-malpractice action alleging negligent performance of a hysterectomy.
- In the prior malpractice case, the jury found for Kanaga, and the Delaware Supreme Court later stated that a verdict for Kanaga should have been directed because the plaintiff presented no expert testimony.
- Kanaga asserted that, during the prior representation, she disclosed confidential information to Parkins about her medical practices and procedures, her professional skill, and her standing and reputation in the medical community—information she said would matter in the defamation case.
- Parkins submitted an affidavit stating he did not recall discussing Kanaga’s standing and reputation with her.
- Harriman and Gannett argued disqualification was unwarranted because Kanaga’s professional abilities and reputation were not confidential, and discussion of such topics would have been unlikely or irrelevant in a malpractice defense.

## Issues

1. Whether RL&F’s prior representation of Dr. Kanaga in a hysterectomy malpractice action was substantially related to RL&F’s later representation of Harriman and Gannett in Kanaga’s defamation action concerning an allegedly unnecessary hysterectomy.
2. Whether, given the prior representation, the court should presume RL&F had access to confidential information that could be used to Kanaga’s disadvantage in the defamation case, requiring disqualification.
3. Whether information about a physician’s medical practices, skill, and reputation can qualify as protected client confidences for former-client conflict purposes when those matters are placed in dispute in later litigation.

## Decision

- The court granted Kanaga’s motion to disqualify RL&F from representing Harriman and Gannett.
- The court found the earlier malpractice representation and the defamation action were substantially related because both involved Kanaga’s professional judgment and conduct concerning hysterectomies and placed her competence and ethics at issue.
- The court concluded that the former-client conflict warranted disqualification without requiring Kanaga to reveal the specific confidential communications she claimed to have shared with Parkins.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not represent a new client in a matter materially adverse to a former client if the new matter is the same as, or substantially related to, the prior representation, absent informed consent from the former client.
- When a substantial relationship between the prior and current matters is shown, courts commonly presume the lawyer received confidential information relevant to the later matter, so the former client need not prove the exact content of the communications.
- A lawyer’s asserted lack of recollection about receiving confidential information does not necessarily defeat disqualification where the matters are substantially related and the prior representation created an opportunity to obtain information that could be used against the former client.
- Confidential information may include nonpublic information about a client’s professional practices, decision-making, and reputational vulnerabilities when those subjects can bear on claims or defenses in later litigation.

## Conclusion

In *Kanaga v. Gannett Company*, the Delaware Superior Court disqualified Richards, Layton & Finger from defending the newspaper and author in Kanaga’s defamation suit because an RL&F partner had previously represented Kanaga in a hysterectomy-related malpractice case, and the overlap between the two matters created a substantial-relationship former-client conflict with a presumed risk that confidential information from the prior defense could be used against her.


Kanaga v. Gannett Company, 1993 WL 485926 (1993)