Ford Motor Co. v. Young
322 Ga. App. 348
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Parents sued Ford after their son died in a rollover; Ford was represented by out-of-state attorneys Alan Thomas and Paul F. Malek admitted pro hac vice in Cobb County State Court.
- Plaintiffs requested production of any applicable insurance policies; Ford responded it had resources to satisfy any judgment but did not produce insurer information.
- Pretrial and voir dire proceedings included disputes over qualifying the jury as to any insurer; Thomas twice represented (once on the record) that Ford had no applicable insurance or that it was essentially self-insured.
- On the morning jurors were being struck, plaintiffs alerted the court that Ford did have applicable insurance; discovery later showed multiple excess policies could apply.
- The trial court found Thomas and Malek violated Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (candor and fairness), orally revoked their pro hac vice admissions, declared a mistrial, and imposed a sanction against Ford; the underlying case later settled and was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal revocation | Attorneys lack standing because they were nonparties | Order directly affects attorneys’ interests and career; they are aggrieved | Attorneys have standing to appeal the revocation |
| Mootness after settlement | Appeal moot because underlying case dismissed | Revocation can have continuing collateral consequences | Appeal is not moot; review permitted |
| Due process before revocation | No prior notice or meaningful hearing required at trial time | Attorneys entitled to notice and opportunity to respond before revocation | Revocation implicates property interest; attorneys must receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; vacated and remanded for process |
| Use of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct | Trial court lacked authority to base revocation on disciplinary rules | Uniform Superior Court Rule includes Rules of Professional Conduct as grounds; courts may disqualify for rule violations | Trial court properly considered the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. Nat. Mtg. Network, 884 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1989) (pro hac vice revocation can implicate due process and have lasting career consequences)
- In re Hatfield, 290 Ga. App. 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (attorney contempt appeal not moot because of possible ongoing collateral consequences)
- Perez v. State, 283 Ga. 196 (Ga. 2008) (Eleventh Circuit decisions are persuasive authority)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1972) (property interest and due process framework)
- Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2011) (once pro hac vice status is granted, some due process required before revocation)
- Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (settlement does not preclude review of disqualification orders that may harm reputation)