Alvear Maldonado v. Ernst & Young LLP
191 P.R. 921
P.R.2014Background
- Victor Alvear Maldonado sued Ernst & Young (EY) for unpaid hours seeking $99,800; EY contended arbitration applied and challenged court jurisdiction.
- Alvear claimed he was a partner (not an employee); EY maintained arbitration policy covered partners per partnership agreements.
- Alvear moved to disqualify EY’s counsel Fiddler, González & Rodríguez (FGR) under Canons 21 and 22, alleging confidential information shared when he was a partner and that former EY partner Jorge M. Cañellas Fidalgo (now at FGR) would be a witness.
- The trial court denied disqualification under Canon 21 but allowed limited discovery and later authorized a deposition of Cañellas Fidalgo to support potential testimony and the disqualification claim; EY objected.
- The Supreme Court addressed whether a party may depose an attorney who is a member of the opposing party’s law firm without showing just cause and whether Ades v. Zalman’s standard should extend to such firm members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a party may depose an attorney who is a member of the opposing party's law firm without showing just cause | Alvear: deposition of Cañellas Fidalgo is necessary to prove partner status and other relevant facts; discovery is broad and liberal | EY: Ades limitation for opposing counsel should apply equally to firm members; deposition is unnecessary or obtainable by less onerous means | Court: Extends Ades—party must show just cause (i.e., information not obtainable by other, less onerous means) to depose a firm member of opposing counsel |
| Whether allowing the deposition automatically requires immediate disqualification of the opposing firm under Canon 22 | Alvear: deposition is proper and relevant; disqualification follows if testimony proves conflict | EY: once deposition authorized, Canon 22 mandates renunciation or disqualification of FGR | Court: Premature to resolve disqualification now; Canon 22 applies to testimony at trial (not merely deposition), and disqualification requires showing the trial testimony would be adverse to the client |
Key Cases Cited
- Ades v. Zalman, 115 DPR 514 (P.R. 1984) (party must show just cause before deposing opposing counsel)
- Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986) (imposes heightened factors before deposing opposing trial counsel)
- Pamida Inc. v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 281 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2002) (limits Shelton protection to counsel directly involved in the pending litigation)