## Facts

- Sharon Kornegay experienced bleeding and pain after Dr. Russell Adkins performed surgery on her at Houston Medical Center.
- Adkins did not believe Kornegay was truly suffering and did not provide further treatment; another physician later performed a second surgery.
- The medical center suspended Adkins’s privileges, citing (among other grounds) Adkins’s abandonment of Kornegay.
- Adkins telephoned Kornegay and told her the medical center was committing racial discrimination against both of them, and he directed her to speak with his lawyers, George W. McGriff and Eric Emanuel Wyatt.
- McGriff met with Kornegay and offered to represent her in a racial-discrimination case based on the same events that led to Adkins’s suspension.
- Kornegay repeatedly expressed concern about a conflict of interest because she might have a malpractice claim against Adkins; McGriff responded that Adkins had done nothing wrong and that Kornegay had no basis for malpractice.
- Months later, McGriff asked Kornegay to sign a conflict waiver; she refused and stated she did not consent to McGriff using her confidential information in any representation of Adkins.
- Kornegay retained new counsel, and McGriff withdrew from representing her, citing a conflict between Kornegay and Adkins.
- After Adkins’s subsequent counsel later withdrew, McGriff and Wyatt entered appearances for Adkins in his federal discrimination suit against Houston Medical Center personnel, including administrator Arthur P. Christie.
- Christie, who had never been a client of McGriff or Wyatt, moved to disqualify them based on their former representation of Kornegay; the district court granted the motion under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a).
- Following final judgment in the underlying case, McGriff and Wyatt appealed, challenging the disqualification order.

## Issues

1. Whether an opposing party who was never the attorneys’ client may move to disqualify counsel based on a former-client conflict that threatens the fairness of the litigation.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by disqualifying McGriff and Wyatt under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a) based on their prior representation of Kornegay.
3. Whether the district court could consider evidence about the prior representation and the relationship between the matters when deciding the disqualification motion.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
- The court held that Christie could seek disqualification even though he was not a current or former client, because the alleged conflict implicated the court’s ability to conduct a fair proceeding.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kornegay was a former client, that the prior and current matters were substantially related, and that Adkins’s interests were materially adverse to Kornegay’s interests in the absence of informed consent.
- The court approved the district court’s consideration of evidentiary materials addressing the scope of the prior representation and the conflict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may supervise attorney conduct in matters before them and may disqualify counsel to prevent a tainted proceeding.
- Disqualification rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to supported factual findings.
- A nonclient opposing party may move to disqualify counsel when the asserted conflict poses a meaningful risk to fair litigation and public confidence in the result.
- Under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(a), a lawyer may not represent a client in the same or a substantially related matter where the representation is materially adverse to a former client, unless the former client gives informed consent (as required by the rule).
- Matters are “substantially related” when they share core facts such that confidential information from the former representation could be relevant in the later representation.
- A former client’s express refusal to permit use of confidential information weighs in favor of disqualification when the lawyer later appears for an adverse party in a substantially related dispute.
- In resolving a disqualification motion, a court may consider competent evidence (including affidavits or testimony) bearing on the attorney-client relationship, the factual overlap between the matters, and whether consent was given.

## Conclusion

McGriff v. Christie affirmed the disqualification of Adkins’s lawyers because they previously represented Kornegay in a matter arising from the same events and later appeared for Adkins in litigation where Kornegay’s interests could be adverse, without Kornegay’s informed consent; the Eleventh Circuit also held the opposing party could raise the conflict to protect the fairness of the proceedings.


McGriff v. Christie, 477 Fed. Appx. 673 (2012)