In re Villas at Highland Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Villas at Highland Park, LLC, 2017 CO 53

Mari Perczak, now at Burg Simpson, previously represented developer Dale Francescon and affiliated entities in multiple construction-defect cases in the 1990s–2000s.
Perczak later represented homeowners’ associations (Sawgrass, Westbury) against Francescon and some of the same corporate defendants; she filed the Villas at Highland Park suit in 2013 for a homeowners’ association against Francescon and others.
Francescon and other developers moved to disqualify Perczak and her firm under Colo. RPC 1.9 (former-client conflict) and imputation under 1.10, alleging the current matter is "substantially related" to her prior representation.
In Sawgrass (2013) a trial court denied disqualification; in Westbury an initial disqualification was entered but the case settled after reconsideration was pending.
In Villas the trial court granted the homeowners’ association’s motion to strike the developers’ disqualification motion on the ground of issue preclusion (relying on Sawgrass) and denied the disqualification motion; the developers petitioned this Court under C.A.R. 21.
The Colorado Supreme Court held issue preclusion did not bar the disqualification motion because Rule 1.9’s substantial-relationship inquiry is fact- and case-specific; it vacated the trial court order and remanded for a proper Rule 1.9 analysis on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Villas / Perczak)	Defendant's Argument (Developers)	Held
Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars relitigation of an attorney-disqualification motion under Colo. RPC 1.9	Sawgrass already decided Perczak was not substantially related to Francescon; that ruling should preclude relitigation	Sawgrass did not decide the same issue because disqualification under Rule 1.9 requires a case-specific substantial-relationship inquiry tied to the particular claims and facts in Villas	Court held issue preclusion inapplicable: 1.9 substantial-relationship inquiries are fact-specific, so disqualification motions will rarely be "identical" across cases; remanded for merits analysis
Whether the trial court adequately analyzed the Rule 1.9 disqualification motion on the merits	Homeowners’ assoc. argued the court considered the evidence and found no conflict (noting fears of personal suit are non-confidential/general)	Developers argued the court improperly relied on preclusion and failed to make required findings about scope of prior/present representations and confidences	Court held the trial court abused its discretion by relying on issue preclusion and by failing to conduct the required Rule 1.9 factual reconstruction and make findings; vacated and remanded

People v. Frisco, 119 P.3d 1093 (Colo. 2005) (explains Rule 1.9 substantial-relationship and need for factual reconstruction)
Stanton v. Schultz, 222 P.3d 303 (Colo. 2010) (sets elements for issue preclusion: identical issue, parties/privity, final judgment, full and fair opportunity)
Wolfe v. Sedalia Water & Sanitation Dist., 343 P.3d 16 (Colo. 2015) (describes purposes of issue preclusion)
People v. Hoskins, 333 P.3d 828 (Colo. 2014) (reviews standards for disqualification and appellate review)
In re Estate of Meyers, 130 P.3d 1023 (Colo. 2006) (characterizes disqualification as an extreme remedy to be used sparingly)