## Facts

- Judicial Watch, Inc. is an activist organization; Larry E. Klayman founded it and served as its Chairman and General Counsel until 2003.
- Judicial Watch entered a legal representation agreement with Peter F. Paul on March 20, 2001, later modified in April 2002.
- Klayman signed the agreement and the modification on behalf of Judicial Watch as “Chairman and General Counsel.”
- Paul sued Judicial Watch and others asserting claims tied to legal services provided under the representation agreement.
- After partial dismissal of the complaint, the remaining claims were: (i) breach of contract against Judicial Watch; and (ii) breach of fiduciary duty and violations of professional conduct standards against Judicial Watch and Paul Orfanedes.
- Klayman entered an appearance as counsel for Paul in the same action against Judicial Watch.
- Defendants moved to disqualify Klayman based on a former-client conflict.

## Issues

1. Whether Klayman’s representation of Paul against Judicial Watch concerned the same or a substantially related matter to Klayman’s prior representation of Judicial Watch.
2. Whether Paul’s interests in the litigation were materially adverse to Judicial Watch as Klayman’s former client.
3. Whether disqualification was required under D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 absent Judicial Watch’s consent, including to prevent potential misuse of former-client confidences.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to disqualify Klayman.
- The court found Klayman had a prior attorney–client relationship with Judicial Watch and the dispute was substantially related to that representation.
- The court found Paul’s position was materially adverse to Judicial Watch because the lawsuit challenged Judicial Watch’s performance and duties under the same representation agreement.
- The court held Judicial Watch did not consent to Klayman’s adverse representation.
- The court ruled that disqualification was warranted to prevent the potential use of confidential information obtained during the prior representation and to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, a lawyer may not represent a new client in the same or a substantially related matter in which the new client’s interests are materially adverse to a former client, unless the former client gives informed consent.
- A matter is “substantially related” when the later representation involves the same subject matter, transactions, or legal work that the lawyer handled for the former client.
- Disqualification under Rule 1.9 is preventive; the court need not find actual disclosure or use of confidences if the risk is sufficient.
- Federal courts may enforce applicable professional conduct rules and may also disqualify counsel under their inherent authority to supervise attorneys practicing before them.

## Conclusion

The court disqualified plaintiff’s counsel because he previously served as Judicial Watch’s General Counsel and signed the representation agreement at the center of the dispute, making his later representation of a plaintiff suing Judicial Watch over that same representation substantially related, materially adverse, and impermissible without the former client’s consent.


Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2008)