North Carolina Lawyers Weekly
After withdrawing from representation of the defendant in this alienation of affections/criminal conversation lawsuit, attorney Amy Simpson joined Sodoma Law, P.C., the same firm at which plaintiff’s counsel works. Because Simpson was promptly screened from the case, never shared any information related to the case with plaintiff’s counsel, and promptly notified defendant of her change of employment, the trial court correctly concluded that Simpson had complied with N.C. Rev. R. Prof. Cond. 1.10 and that “no conflict of interest [existed] that would disqualify [Sodoma] from continued representation of [] plaintiff.”
We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel.
The grant of a disqualification motion is immediately appealable, as such an order deprives a party of the right to counsel of her own choosing. When a disqualification motion is denied, any harm from former counsel’s misuse of client confidences can be addressed on appeal from any adverse final judgment. Defendant does not have a right to immediately appeal the trial court’s order; nevertheless, we issue a writ of certiorari in the interests of the expeditious administration of justice.
The trial court found in Finding of Fact 8 that Simpson began her employment with Sodoma’s Charlotte office on 6 January 2020 and that she was screened from the case on 15 January 2020 “after a firm-wide conflict check[.]” Defendant asserted at the 17 February 2020 hearing on the motion to disqualify that Simpson’s “plan to transition” to the firm “occurred in November” and argues in her brief on appeal that “the transition was apparently solidified within days” of defendant terminating the representation in November 2019 and that Simpson “accepted the [new] position … in December 2019[,]” without citing any evidence in the record in support.
However, at the 17 February 2020 hearing on the motion, Simpson testified that her first day at Sodoma’s Charlotte office was 6 January 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that she worked out of Sodoma’s Monroe office, where the physical files related to the case reside, and that Simpson had never been to the firm’s Monroe office. Plaintiff’s counsel further represented that the electronic files related to the case were password-protected to deny Simpson and her paralegal access on 15 January 2020, the day she became aware of the prior representation.
No record evidence supports defendant’s assertions related to Simpson forming an association in practice with Sodoma before 6 January 2020. We therefore hold that Finding of Fact 8 is supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal.
Implicit in one of defendant’s arguments is the premise that 22 days cannot constitute prompt written notice within the meaning of Rule 1.10(c), which premise we reject. Whether notice has been promptly given within the meaning of Rule 1.10(c) is a fact-specific inquiry, but we hold that the 22-day delay here complied with Rule 1.10(c), particularly for a change of employment by a “very active family law attorney,” as Plaintiff’s counsel represented that both she and Simpson are.
The trial court concluded that (1) Simpson “[had] complied with Rule 1.10”; (2) Simpson “[had] been appropriately screened”; and (3) “no conflict of interest [existed] that would disqualify [Sodoma] from continued representation of [] Plaintiff[.]” The trial court’s findings amply support these conclusions.
Affirmed.
Van Kampen v. Garcia (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-212-21, 20 pp.) (Darren Jackson, J.) Appealed from Union County Superior Court (Jeffery Carpenter, J.) Edward Garrett for plaintiff; James Dedman and Tyler Martin for defendant. 2021-NCCOA-340
