Justice Donna Mills
Creighton sought to disqualify Cino’s counsel, Perrella, claiming he was Creighton’s attorney on different matters from 1989. He argued Perrella represented him on an environmental legal dispute, and in landlord/tenant matters. Creighton also claimed he and Perrella had a personal, not merely attorney-client, relationship as friends. Perrella admitted his law firm represented Creighton in an environmental matter, but denied working on the case himself, nor had any recollection of any litigation in the 1990s. He denied representing Creighton in any other matter or having a relationship, other than a professional one. The court noted it was undisputed Cino’s and Creighton’s interests were materially adverse in the instant litigation, and that Perrella represented both parties. Yet, it found Creighton failed to show this action was clearly a "substantially related matter" to any prior case on which Perrella represented him. The court found no evidence of any privileged information that may have been imparted to Perrella in his prior representation of Creighton. Yet, it did not find Creighton and his attorney engaged in frivolous conduct as a result of this motion. The motion to disqualify Perrella was denied, as was Cino’s motion for sanctions.
