SER Verizon West Virginia v. Hon. James A. Matish, Judge, etc.
740 S.E.2d 84
W. Va.2013Background
- Verizon seeks a writ of prohibition to block circuit-court orders allowing Steptoe to continue representing the Plaintiff Employees in wrongful termination actions against Verizon.
- Steptoe previously represented two Verizon employees (Rowh in 2009, Radcliff in 2010) with protective orders and confidential settlements.
- The Rowh and Radcliff agreements contemplated continued confidentiality and allowed certain disclosures for court orders or as required by law.
- While Radcliff was winding down, Steptoe filed nine additional plaintiff-employee suits (and two class actions) against Verizon.
- Verizon moved to disqualify Steptoe due to Rector’s stated use of Rowh discovery materials and potential witness issues; the circuit court held hearings and ultimately disqualified Steptoe, then reversed after consent from former clients; Verizon sought extraordinary relief in this Court and the writ was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 1.7(b) disqualifies Steptoe | Verizon argues current representation is materially limited by former-client duties | Steptoe contends no material limitation exists; no direct adverse interests | No disqualifying conflict under 1.7(b) |
| Whether Rule 1.9(a) requires disqualification | Bluestone-like test shows material adversity between former and current clients | Interests are aligned; no true adversity | Disqualification not required under 1.9(a) |
| Whether Rule 1.9(b) requires disqualification over use of confidential information | Steptoe may misuse protected information | No use of protected information occurred or will occur; information not disclosed | No disqualification under 1.9(b) |
| Whether Rule 5.6(b) bars protection-order/settlement-impacted practice | Protective orders/settlements unlawfully restrict attorney’s right to practice | Such instruments cannot restrict the attorney’s right to practice under 5.6 | Protective orders/settlements cannot preclude subsequent representation under 5.6; writ denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bluestone Coal Corp. v. Mazzone, 226 W. Va. 148 (2010) (Rule 1.9(a) factors; confidentiality and conflict distinctions)
- Garlow v. Zakaib, 186 W. Va. 457 (1991) (Inherent caution with disqualification motions; conflict limits)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Artimez, 208 W. Va. 288 (2000) (Rule 1.7(b) commentary on conflicts and loyalty)
- Barefield v. DPIC Cos., Inc., 215 W. Va. 544 (2004) (Conflict rule interpretation; loyalty concerns)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W. Va. 12 (1996) (Guidelines for issuing writs of prohibition; discretionary factors)