X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Works’ motion to disqualify counsel. The record fails to demonstrate that Franks’ prior representation of Raymond bears such a substantial relationship to his adverse representation of Delores in the will contest that Franks should be disqualified in the present litigation. FACTS:Raymond and Delores Head sued Budget Rent-A-Car for injuries they received when a Budget employee ran into them with her car. Ben Franks represented the couple in the action, which resulted in separate settlements for each. Raymond died in February 2003. His will named Dale Works as the executor of the estate. Raymond’s will left everything to his children and grandchildren, but nothing to Delores. Delores contested the will, and hired Franks to represent her. Works sought to disqualify Franks on the basis of his prior representation of Raymond was adverse to Delores’ claims against the estate. Works also claimed that he planned to call Franks as a material witness who would testify to the existence of a premarital agreement that would validate the exclusion of Delores from sharing in the estate. The trial court denied Works’ motion. Now he files a for a writ of mandamus with this court to disqualify Franks. HOLDING:Writ denied. The court first notes that in order to disqualify an attorney, the opposing party must show that the prior representation bears a “substantial relationship” to the matters at hand in the pending litigation. Works’ intention to call Franks as a material fact witness is to elicit testimony on whether Raymond and Delores had a valid premarital agreement that would prevent Delores from claiming a portion of Raymond’s estate as community property in the event the trial court determined Raymond died intestate. The court determines, however, that the record does not demonstrate that Franks’ prior representation of both Raymond and Delores is substantially related to his representation of Delores in the will contest. First, the court finds, the bases of the two matters � a personal-injury suit and a probate matter � are not the same, and in the personal-injury suit, Delores was privy to the same confidential information as Raymond was. Second, despite Works’ assertion that there is a valid premarital agreement, he has yet to produce it. Even assuming the agreement exists, it is impossible to understand the scope of the agreement without reading its terms. Third, none of the witness who testified regarding disqualification affirmatively testified that they had personal knowledge that there was a premarital agreement. Even Delores’ admission that one existed came at a time she says she felt pressured to agree with whatever Works said, just so she could focus on grieving for her husband. Fourth, nothing in the record shows that Franks was the one who drafted the alleged premarital agreement. Fifth, Franks repeatedly told the trial court he did not draft any alleged premarital agreement between Raymond and Delores. And sixth, even if Franks structured the personal-injury lawsuit settlements in 1998 with the premarital agreements in mind, that has no direct impact on whether such an agreement still existed in 2003. OPINION:Ross, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.