Amy G.Denero v. J-Macks Properties,LLC et.al, 3:13-cv-00073-RAM-RM

Background

Plaintiff Amy Gwen Denero sued defendants; plaintiff was represented by Law Offices of Karin A. Bentz, P.C. (LOKAB). QPWB appeared for defendants; litigation ongoing.
Matthew Reinhardt was hired as an associate by LOKAB in March 2014, had general access to firm files, attended meetings discussing client matters, and received limited assignments on Denero’s case but never communicated directly with Denero.
Reinhardt accepted employment with Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. (QPWB) in December 2014 and began at QPWB January 12, 2015. QPWB instituted a screening procedure, denied Reinhardt access to LOKAB matters, and placed him in a closed office.
Plaintiff moved to disqualify QPWB under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.9 and 1.10, arguing Reinhardt’s prior representation and knowledge of confidences required disqualification of both him and the firm.
Defendants conceded Reinhardt would not work on cases involving LOKAB clients, implemented a screen, certified no fee allocation to Reinhardt for affected matters, and notified former clients by letter.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court found Reinhardt had actual knowledge sufficient to trigger Rule 1.9 concerns as to him personally but held QPWB’s screening, fee and notification measures satisfied the Rule 1.10 exception, and denied the motion to disqualify QPWB.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an individual lawyer (Reinhardt) is disqualified under MRPC 1.9	Reinhardt had an attorney‑client relationship with Denero at LOKAB, worked on this case, and therefore cannot represent adverse clients without consent	Reinhardt had no substantive direct contact with Denero and will not work on QPWB matters involving LOKAB clients	Court inferred Reinhardt possessed confidential knowledge and would be disqualified personally under Rule 1.9
Whether QPWB is imputedly disqualified under MRPC 1.10	QPWB must be disqualified because Reinhardt’s prior representation of Denero creates a firm conflict	Rule 1.10 permits a firm to avoid imputation if timely screening, no fee sharing, prompt notice, and certifications occur	Court held QPWB may continue: its screening, fee allocation, notice, and certifications satisfied Rule 1.10 exception
Whether plaintiff’s non‑consent requires disqualification despite screening	Non‑consent should bar continued representation absent waiver	Screening can negate need for consent under MRPC 1.10(a)(2) if requirements met	Court found screening can suffice without plaintiff’s consent and denied disqualification of the firm
Timeliness and adequacy of QPWB’s notice and screening	Letter notifying LOKAB clients was after Reinhardt began and thus untimely/insufficient	QPWB implemented screening before or at hire, restricted access, and later sent detailed notice and certifications	Court concluded notice and screening were timely and adequate under the circumstances

Key Cases Cited

McKenzie Constr. v. St. Croix Storage Corp., 961 F. Supp. 857 (D.V.I. 1997) (discusses purpose of disqualification motions and court authority)
United States v. Miller, 624 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir. 1980) (district court authority to supervise attorney conduct and disqualification principles)
Brice v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 769 F. Supp. 193 (D.V.I. 1990) (disqualification not automatic; factors to balance)
In re Corn Derivatives, 748 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1984) (public confidence and client loyalty justify disqualification where confidences may be used)
Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc. v. Delmar Mktg., 866 F. Supp. 1204 (D.V.I. 1995) (courts may presume confidential information passed to a former firm attorney)
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 1099 (D.N.J. 1993) (motions to disqualify are drastic and viewed with disfavor)
Apeldyn Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 660 F. Supp. 2d 557 (D. Del. 2009) (articulates Rule 1.9 disqualification factors)