Archuleta v. Turley
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149965
| D. Utah | 2012Background
- Petitioner Archuleta challenges Mark Field’s representation of the state in his federal habeas action on Rule 1.12 grounds.
- Field previously worked as a capital litigation law clerk for Utah state judges and assisted on Archuleta’s state habeas appeal.
- Field began state employment after Archuleta’s state postconviction decision; ethics screening limited his state work but not all cases.
- Archuleta’s federal petition is before the same court and opposing party as the state’s prior state action, creating potential conflicts.
- Attorney General assigned Field to federal capital cases, including Archuleta, raising concerns about confidential information and taint.
- Judge grants Archuleta’s motion to disqualify Field from appearing for the state in Archuleta’s federal habeas case.]
- The court later denies the state’s motion to reconsider, reaffirming the disqualification order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 1.12 bars Field from representing the state | Archuleta: Rule 1.12 prohibits representation in related matters | Turley/State: federal matter is separate; Rule 1.12 does not apply | Rule 1.12 bars Field from appearing for the state in Archuleta’s federal case |
| Whether the “matter” is the same under Rule 1.12 | Archuleta: state and federal appeals are the same matter | State: not the same matter due to time/jurisdiction | The matters are the same for Rule 1.12 purposes |
| Whether disqualification is warranted under Rule 1.12 | Archuleta: disqualify to prevent taint and appearance of impropriety | State: no taint; disqualification rare and unwarranted | Disqualification granted to avoid taint and appearance concerns |
| Whether the motion to reconsider was proper | Archuleta: oppose reconsideration | State: seeks reconsideration of disqualification | Motion to reconsider denied; disqualification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Poly Software Int’l v. Datamost Corp., 880 F.Supp. 1491 (D. Utah 1995) (broad notion of ‘matter’ includes substantially related matters and confidential information)
- Koller By and Through Koller v. Richardson‑Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (motions to disqualify should be granted rarely; caution against tactical use)
- Parkinson v. Phonex Corp., 857 F.Supp. 1474 (D. Utah 1994) (ethical violations taint the trial; varies with egregiousness and prejudice)
- Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241 (2d Cir. 1979) (appearance of impropriety weighs against continued representation)
- Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts may disqualify for appearance of impropriety to preserve integrity)
- Kessenich v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 684 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (disqualification appropriate to maintain public confidence in legal profession)