## Facts

- Former and current Verizon employees sued Verizon West Virginia, Inc. and individual managers for wrongful termination and discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.
- Plaintiffs were represented by Steptoe & Johnson PLLC (Steptoe), which had represented different former Verizon employees in earlier wrongful-termination suits against Verizon.
- The earlier suits involved protective orders limiting use of discovery materials to those cases and later ended in confidential settlement agreements.
- In the new litigation, a Steptoe attorney indicated the firm might “draw upon” documents and information learned in the earlier cases in developing strategy, discovery requests, or impeachment.
- Verizon moved in circuit court to disqualify Steptoe, asserting conflicts and confidentiality problems arising from the prior protective orders and settlements.
- The circuit court denied disqualification, and Verizon sought a writ of prohibition to bar enforcement of that order.

## Issues

1. Whether a writ of prohibition is an appropriate mechanism to review the denial of a motion to disqualify counsel, and what showing is required for extraordinary relief.
2. Whether successive representation of different employee-plaintiffs against the same corporate defendant created a conflict of interest requiring disqualification under the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. Whether prior protective orders and confidential settlement obligations required disqualification to prevent misuse of confidential discovery materials.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied the writ of prohibition.
- The court held prohibition is an available vehicle to challenge a disqualification ruling, but Verizon did not satisfy the demanding standard for extraordinary relief.
- The court found no disqualifying conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct based on the record presented.
- The court concluded that protective orders and settlement confidentiality obligations did not, by themselves, bar Steptoe from representing new plaintiffs; alleged violations should be addressed through enforcement or sanctions, not anticipatory disqualification.
- The circuit court’s denial of disqualification was within its discretion and did not reflect clear legal error.

## Legal Principles

- A party may seek prohibition to challenge a trial court’s ruling on attorney disqualification, but the remedy is extraordinary and requires a clear showing of legal error and need for immediate intervention.
- Conflict-of-interest rules principally protect current and former clients and are not intended as litigation tools for adversaries to remove opposing counsel.
- Successive representation of different plaintiffs in similar suits against the same defendant is not inherently a conflict, particularly where the defendant was never the law firm’s client and the successive clients’ interests are aligned.
- Protective orders restrict disclosure and use of specified confidential materials; they do not prevent counsel from using general knowledge and experience gained in prior litigation, absent proof of prohibited disclosure or use of protected information.
- Disqualification is a severe remedy that should be ordered only on a concrete showing of an actual conflict or serious ethical violation, with attention to the client’s choice of counsel and the attorney’s ability to practice.

## Conclusion

The court refused to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel or to prohibit enforcement of the trial court’s order because Verizon failed to show a clear ethical conflict or imminent misuse of protected materials; confidentiality concerns were better handled through enforcement of protective orders rather than disqualification.


State ex rel. Verizon W. Va., Inc. v. Matish, 740 S.E.2d 84 (W. Va. 2013)