## Facts

- Richard and Debra Plein insured their home with USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA).
- After a home fire, the Pleins sued USAA in Washington superior court, alleging insurance bad faith and related claims based on USAA’s handling of their claim.
- The Pleins retained counsel including attorneys from Keller Rohrback LLP (Keller).
- Keller, through attorney Irene Hecht and others, had previously represented USAA in Washington for roughly a decade, including many insurance matters.
- USAA asserted Keller had obtained confidential information about USAA’s claims handling, business practices, and litigation strategies during the prior representation.
- USAA objected to Keller’s representation of the Pleins and argued Keller should be disqualified under Washington Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.9(a) absent USAA’s consent.

## Issues

1. Under RPC 1.9(a), when are a lawyer’s former and current representations “substantially related” so as to require disqualification in a later, adverse matter without the former client’s informed consent?
2. Does a law firm’s general knowledge of a former institutional client’s claims-handling and litigation “playbook,” gained through many prior matters, establish the required substantial relationship?

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order denying disqualification.
- The Court held USAA did not show a substantial risk that Keller obtained confidential factual information in the prior representation that would materially advance the Pleins’ position in their bad-faith suit.
- The Court concluded that generalized institutional or strategic knowledge about how USAA typically litigates did not, by itself, satisfy the “substantially related” requirement under the current RPC 1.9 framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under RPC 1.9(a), disqualification in a later, materially adverse matter requires a showing that the matters are the same or “substantially related,” unless the former client gives informed consent.
- The “substantially related” inquiry centers on whether there is a substantial risk the lawyer obtained confidential factual information in the former representation that would materially advance the new client’s position in the later matter.
- Generalized knowledge of a former client’s typical strategies, practices, or preferences, without a showing of materially useful confidential factual information tied to the later dispute, is insufficient to establish substantial relation.
- The former client bears the burden to demonstrate the substantial risk of materially useful confidential factual information; broad assertions based on the volume or similarity of prior work are inadequate.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court held that a former client seeking disqualification under RPC 1.9(a) must identify a substantial risk that the lawyer possesses confidential factual information from the prior representation that could materially aid the new adverse client; generalized “playbook” knowledge from past work for an institutional client does not automatically require disqualification.


Plein v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 195 Wash. 2d 677 (2020)