Case Brief 12 Phoenix Founders, Inc. V. McClellan

Case Brief 12 Phoenix Founders, Inc. V. McClellan - Holding...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Belen Cardenas Andrew Ault Case brief 12 4/27/2009 Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. McClellan 831, 38 Tex. Sup. J. 12(1994) FACTS: There was a lawsuit was brought upon by the Phoenix founders against Beneke. Phoenix was represented by Thompson & Knight. Beneke was represented by David & Goodman. A paralegal who worked for Thompson & Knight left for three weeks to work for David and Goodman and later returned to work with Thompson & Knight. Beneke made a motion to disqualify Thompson & knight for being exposed to confidential information through the paralegal. Meanwhile the paralegal resigned. The trial court disqualified the firm. Thompson and Knight appealed. Issue: Whether or not the firm should be disqualified from the case due to the paralegal moving from one firm to another.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Holding: No. The trial court should reconsider the disqualification motion. Rationale: The committee on Professional Ethics states that the rules do not require disqualification of the law firm as long as long as the supervising lawyer complies with the rules to insure that the conduct of any lawyer or paralegal complies with the “professional obligations of a lawyer”. The American Bar Association’s committee on Professional Ethics states that states that the firm is not required to be disqualified as long as the paralegal adhered to the screening process, and as long as the paralegal not reveal any confidential information. The court needs to take appropriate steps in the disciplinary rules and screening before it is dismissed from the case....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online