Liberty v. Bennett
2012 ME 81
| Me. | 2012Background
- Liberty appeals an interlocutory order denying his motion to disqualify attorney Martha Gayth-waite from representing Bennett.
- Liberty contends Gayth-waite holds confidential information from representing Liberty's former attorney Van Dyke, which relates to the Bennett case.
- The underlying litigation stems from Liberty and Copp's divorce; Van Dyke represented Liberty, Bennett represented Copp.
- Liberty previously sued Van Dyke and Berman & Simmons for legal malpractice; Gaythwaite represented Van Dyke in that action, obtaining related discovery.
- The trial court initially disqualified Gaythwaite but then granted Bennett's reconsideration; Liberty appealed the denial of disqualification on Interlocutory review.
- The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding the two statutory exceptions to the final judgment rule did not warrant review on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interlocutory order is reviewable on the merits. | Liberty argues exceptions apply. | Bennett contends no exception applies. | No merit; appeal dismissed under final judgment rule. |
| Does the death knell exception apply? | Liberty asserts irreparable loss of confidential information. | Bennett asserts generalized harm insufficient for exception. | Death knell not shown; exception not satisfied. |
| Does the judicial economy exception apply? | Liberty seeks immediate review to move toward finality. | Bennett argues insufficient final disposition or public interest in immediate review. | Judicial economy exception not satisfied; appeal dismissed. |
| Was the disqualification standard applied correctly? | Liberty urged use of heightened standard (Markheim) and in-camera review. | Bennett relies on Morin and waiver arguments. | Court did not apply Markheim; ultimately declined to reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morin v. Maine Education Association, 2010 ME 36 (Me. 2010) (requires actual identifiable harm for disqualification; specifics needed)
- Estate of Markheim v. Markheim, 2008 ME 138 (Me. 2008) (recognizes inference of confidential information as basis for disqualification)
- Hurley v. Hurley, 2007 ME 65 (Me. 2007) (disqualification review when harm to rights is substantial)
- Bruesewitz v. Grant, 2007 ME 13 (Me. 2007) (death knell exception requires irreparable loss of rights)
- Town of Otis v. Derr, 2001 ME 151 (Me. 2001) (judicial economy exception—two-part test for reviewability)