In re People v. Hoskins
333 P.3d 828
| Colo. | 2014Background
- Petitioners Hoskins and Jane Medicals seek to vacate a trial-court disqualification of PMW as their counsel under Colo. RPC 1.9(a).
- PMW previously represented All Care during a Colorado DOR investigation and obtained confidential information; All Care and its management disputed ownership during related arbitration.
- Indictment in COCCA case (and related felonies) named Hoskins, Jane Medicals, All Care, and others; PMW entered an appearance for Petitioners but not for All Care.
- Prosecution moved to disqualify PMW contending a material adverse conflict due to prior representation of All Care; trial court disqualified PMW.
- Trial court relied on PMW’s prior representation and a letter describing “malfeasance of key managerial employees” as support for a conflict; testimony and expert opinions were heard.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted relief, holding record insufficient to prove material adversity and remanding for proceedings, with a rule to show cause issued earlier in the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the trial court’s disqualification of PMW an abuse of discretion under RPC 1.9(a)? | Hoskins argues no abuse; no proven material adversity. | People argue PMW’s prior All Care representation creates material adversity to Petitioners. | Yes; the trial court abused its discretion. |
| Are Petitioners’ and All Care’s interests sufficiently adverse in the current criminal matter to warrant disqualification? | Petitioners and All Care have aligned interests; no clear adversity. | There is inherent risk All Care may be harmed by PMW’s knowledge, creating adversity. | Insufficient showing of material adversity; no mandatory disqualification. |
| Is the present criminal proceeding the same or substantially related to the DOR investigation for purposes of RPC 1.9(a)? | The current matter is the same or substantially related to the DOR investigation. | While related, the precise adversity to All Care must be shown; not established. | Yes, the matters are the same or substantially related; however, record fails to prove adversity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodrigues v. Dist. Court, 719 P.2d 699 (Colo. 1986) (right to counsel of choice is deference but not absolute)
- Frisco v. People, 119 P.3d 1093 (Colo. 2005) (limits to disqualification; strong emphasis on loyalty)
- Estate of Myers, 130 P.3d 1023 (Colo. 2006) (disqualification as a severe remedy to be avoided)
- Harlan, 54 P.3d 871 (Colo. 2002) (disqualification standards; burden on movant must show prejudice)
- Nozolino, 2013 CO 19, 298 P.3d 915 (Colo. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard and considerations for counsel disqualification)