This interlocutory appeal requires consideration of the ethical obligations incumbent on attorneys who, having represented a client in complex litigation but now working in a non-lawyer capacity, subsequently seek to advance interests aligned with that client's adversaries. The particular circumstances presented concern conduct by James Conlan, a former partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP who represented defendants Johnson & Johnson in this multi-county talc-based powder litigation.
Conlan, as attorney for J&J, participated for nearly two years in confidential strategy and settlement analysis of the talc litigation. After departing his firm, Conlan started a new enterprise, Legacy Liability Solutions, that pursued methods to acquire and resolve those same legal liabilities. Conlan, as Legacy's CEO, actively collaborated with attorneys from Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., a leading plaintiff's firm in the talc litigation.
J&J moved to disqualify Beasley Allen from representing plaintiffs in the litigation. The trial court denied the motion. Conlan's prolonged access to J&J's privileged information, followed by collaborative efforts with their most prominent adversary, raises doubt of the most serious order.
The trial record leaves the court with clear concern for the preservation of trust intrinsic to the attorney-client relationship. As such, the court finds that as CEO of Legacy, Conlan's association with Beasley Allen violated RPC 1.9(a) and 5.3 and the appropriate remedy was disqualification. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.