FEIN Et Al. v. CHENAULT Et Al.
330 Ga. App. 222
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Fein (Florida attorney) and Continental Tire The Americas, LLC appealed a trial court order in a Georgia personal injury case.
- The trial court found Fein violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct but did not revoke his pro hac vice status, instead designating local counsel as lead and restricting Fein's participation.
- The discovery dispute over rubber compound formulas and other tire-related trade secret information triggered multiple orders and motions in 2013.
- Continental sought emergency relief, stay, and later an interlocutory appeal; the trial court issued a rule nisi regarding Fein’s pro hac vice conduct.
- Fein challenged the trial court’s order, arguing it violated his client Continental’s right to counsel and was improper before final resolution of the case.
- This Court dismissed related interlocutory appeals and ultimately dismissed Fein’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction and non-finality of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Fein's pro hac vice restriction directly appealable? | Chenault argues the order is not final or collateral-appealable. | Cant rely on Stevens to permit direct appeal; the order is not final. | No direct appealable final/ collateral order for Fein. |
| Does the collateral order doctrine permit direct review of Fein’s conduct order? | Fein claims collateral-order review applies due to immediate impact on rights. | Order is not a collateral order that warrants immediate review. | Collateral-order review does not apply. |
| Should this court address direct appeal despite the trial court’s non-final disciplinary ruling? | Stevens supports appeal as a disqualification-type proceed. | Disqualification/disciplinary issue is not final; review deferred. | This court lacks jurisdiction for direct appeal. |
| Do public policy concerns bar piecemeal appeal of attorney-disqualification-like orders before final judgment? | Stevens allows direct appeal for disqualification; expedited review favors client. | Policy supports avoiding piecemeal review and protecting finality. | Public policy disfavors direct appeal here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Thomas, 257 Ga. 645 (Ga. 1987) (untimely appeal of attorney disqualification; direct appeal considered)
- Cherry v. Coast House, Ltd., 257 Ga. 403 (Ga. 1987) (disqualification ordinarily requires interlocutory appeal)
- Settendown Public Utility v. Waterscape Utility, 324 Ga. App. 652 (Ga. App. 2013) (attempts to reconcile attorney-disqualification review pathways)
- Lassiter Properties v. Davidson Mineral Properties, 230 Ga. App. 216 (Ga. App. 1998) (interlocutory appeal pathways in civil disputes)
- Amado v. City of Atlanta, 228 Ga. App. 791 (Ga. App. 1997) (interlocutory appeal after certification of immediate review)
- Ewing Holding Corp. v. Egan-Stanley Investments, 154 Ga. App. 493 (Ga. App. 1980) (early guidance on interlocutory appeal procedures)
- Richardson-Merrell v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (S. Ct. 1985) (policy discourages piecemeal appellate review of disqualification)