## Facts

- The Nemours Foundation (project owner) litigated construction-dispute claims arising from an addition to a children’s hospital in Wilmington, Delaware.
- Multiple related actions among Nemours, Gilbane (general contractor), Pierce (subcontractor), and design professionals (including Furlow, a mechanical engineer) were consolidated; the remaining dispute included claims and counterclaims among Nemours, Pierce, and Gilbane.
- Paul A. Bradley, a lawyer formerly employed by Howard M. Berg & Associates, worked on the matter in 1984 assisting counsel representing Furlow and reviewed extensive project documentation, including materials produced by Nemours, and participated in settlement-related preparations.
- Bradley later joined Biggs & Battaglia, which served as local counsel for Pierce in the same litigation.
- After learning of Bradley’s prior work on behalf of Furlow, Nemours moved late in the proceedings to disqualify Bradley and to disqualify Biggs from representing Pierce, asserting a risk that confidential information would be used against Nemours.
- Biggs asserted it did not know of Bradley’s prior involvement at the time of hiring and implemented screening measures to isolate him from the Pierce representation.

## Issues

1. Whether Bradley must be disqualified from representing Pierce due to a former-client conflict arising from his prior work for Furlow in the same matter.
2. Whether Bradley’s disqualification must be imputed to Biggs, requiring firm-wide disqualification, or whether screening and fee segregation can prevent imputation.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to disqualify Bradley.
- The court denied the motion to disqualify Biggs, permitting the firm to continue representing Pierce subject to effective screening of Bradley and ensuring he received no share of the fee from the matter.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer is disqualified where the lawyer previously represented a client and the current representation is materially adverse to the former client in the same or a substantially related matter.
- Substantial involvement in a matter (including review of extensive case documents and participation in settlement preparations) supports an inference of access to confidential information sufficient to warrant individual disqualification when the lawyer later appears on the opposing side.
- Although conflicts are typically imputed to all lawyers in a firm, imputation may be avoided when the conflicted lawyer is promptly and effectively screened from the matter and receives no portion of the fee.
- In assessing firm disqualification, courts may consider the timing of the motion and the potential disruption and prejudice to the client’s chosen representation, while still requiring protections adequate to safeguard former-client confidences.

## Conclusion

The court disqualified a laterally hired lawyer who had materially participated in the same litigation for an aligned co-defendant, but declined to disqualify his new firm because screening and fee restrictions were sufficient to protect confidential information without imposing automatic firm-wide disqualification.


Nemours Found. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 632 F. Supp. 418 (D. Del. 1986)