## Facts

- Lansing-Delaware Water District sued Oak Lane Park, Inc. and individual defendants in Kansas district court.
- Lansing-Delaware was represented by Chapman, Waters & Baxter; defendants were represented by Davis, Beall, McGuire & Thompson, Chartered.
- Gary A. Nelson worked as an associate at Chapman & Waters while the lawsuit was pending; the firm’s practice allowed attorneys broad access to firm files and case discussions.
- Nelson resigned from Chapman & Waters and soon joined Davis-Beall, the firm representing the defendants in the same litigation.
- Chapman & Waters requested that Davis-Beall withdraw, asserting a conflict because Nelson had obtained confidential information while at Chapman & Waters.
- Davis-Beall refused to withdraw and implemented an internal screen: Nelson was instructed not to work on the matter and the firm restricted his access to relevant files.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Lansing-Delaware’s motion to disqualify Davis-Beall.
- Nelson described his involvement at Chapman & Waters as limited, while another Chapman attorney testified to multiple detailed discussions with Nelson about the case.
- The district court found Nelson had acquired material confidential information about the litigation and disqualified Davis-Beall under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 226 and MRPC 1.10.

## Issues

1. Whether MRPC 1.10 requires disqualification of a firm that hires an attorney from opposing counsel when the attorney acquired material confidential information in the same matter.
2. Whether the hiring firm’s screening procedures can prevent imputed disqualification under Kansas’s interpretation of MRPC 1.10.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering disqualification based on its factual findings from the evidentiary hearing.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order disqualifying Davis-Beall.
- The Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Nelson had obtained material confidential information while at Chapman & Waters.
- The Court held Nelson’s conflict was imputed to Davis-Beall under MRPC 1.10.
- The Court rejected the argument that a “Chinese Wall” could cure the conflict under Kansas law in these circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer who has obtained a former client’s confidential information may not represent an adverse party in the same or a substantially related matter without consent (MRPC 1.9).
- If one lawyer in a firm is disqualified due to a conflict under MRPC 1.9, the disqualification is imputed to the entire firm while the lawyers are associated (MRPC 1.10).
- In Kansas, when a laterally hired lawyer is shown to have acquired material confidential information in the matter, screening measures by the new firm do not avoid imputed disqualification.
- Disqualification decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings about exposure to confidential information.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed disqualification of defendants’ counsel because a laterally hired lawyer from opposing counsel was found to have obtained material confidences about the same litigation, and Kansas applied MRPC 1.10 to impute that conflict to the entire firm despite attempted internal screening.


Lansing-Delaware Water District v. Oak Lane Park, Inc., 248 Kan. 563, 808 P.2d 1369 (Kan. 1991)