## Facts

- OfficeMax North America, Inc. (OfficeMax) was represented in this litigation by the law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, LLC (Ogletree).
- Attorney Talib Ellison worked for Ogletree and represented OfficeMax in the same litigation while employed there.
- Benjamin Prentice (and, in the broader action, Sophia Francis) sued OfficeMax, and The Law Offices of Lee J. Rohn & Associates, LLC (Rohn) represented the plaintiffs.
- While the case was pending and before discovery began, Ellison left Ogletree and took a job with Rohn.
- Rohn did not notify Ogletree about Ellison’s move for more than a month after Ellison joined Rohn.
- OfficeMax did not consent to Ellison (or Rohn) representing the plaintiffs in the case after Ellison changed firms.
- OfficeMax moved to disqualify Ellison and the Rohn firm based on Ellison’s prior work for OfficeMax in the same matter.
- The plaintiffs did not present evidence showing that Rohn timely and effectively screened Ellison from the case.
- A magistrate judge granted the motion, disqualifying Ellison and imputing his conflict to Rohn, which disqualified the entire firm; the magistrate judge gave Prentice time (30 days) to retain new counsel.
- Prentice objected to the magistrate judge’s disqualification order, bringing the dispute before the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney who previously represented a party in the same litigation must be disqualified after joining the opposing party’s law firm.
2. Whether that attorney’s conflict is imputed to the new firm, requiring firm-wide disqualification when the party opposing disqualification shows no adequate screening and notice measures.

## Decision

- The district court overruled Prentice’s objections and left the magistrate judge’s disqualification order in place.
- The court agreed that Ellison was disqualified from representing the plaintiffs because he previously worked on the same case for OfficeMax.
- The court agreed that Ellison’s conflict was imputed to Rohn, warranting disqualification of the firm as plaintiffs’ counsel.
- The court noted the absence of evidence that Rohn implemented an effective screen to prevent Ellison’s involvement in the case.
- The court left intact the magistrate judge’s remedy giving Prentice time to obtain substitute counsel.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer who previously represented a client in a matter generally may not later represent an adverse party in the same matter (or a substantially related one) without the former client’s consent.
- When a lawyer switches firms and is conflicted out of a matter due to prior work for an opposing party, the conflict is typically attributed to the lawyer’s new firm, which can require firm-wide disqualification.
- To avoid firm-wide disqualification in jurisdictions and circumstances where screening may be considered, the party resisting disqualification bears the burden to show timely, effective screening measures and prompt notice to the affected former client.
- Disqualification is a strong remedy used to protect client confidences and the fairness of the proceedings; courts balance those concerns against a party’s interest in continued representation by chosen counsel.
- On review of a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order, the district court applies a deferential standard and will not disturb the ruling absent clear error or a ruling contrary to law.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld the magistrate judge’s order disqualifying both attorney Talib Ellison and the Rohn firm because Ellison had previously represented OfficeMax in the same litigation, OfficeMax did not consent to the change in sides, and the plaintiffs did not show that Rohn put timely and effective screening and notice procedures in place to prevent the risk that OfficeMax’s confidential information could be used against it.


Prentice v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., 2021 WL 2386123 (2021)