Shuttleworth v. Rankin-Shuttleworth of Georgia, LLC
328 Ga. App. 593
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- RSG and Marvin Rankin (Plaintiffs) sued J. Sterling Shuttleworth, his wife, and Shuttleworth’s business (Defendants) asserting conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and related claims.
- Wayne Pierce and Pierce & Dunkelberger had previously represented RSG, Rankin, and earlier joint ventures in various matters, including advising on the membership agreement and defending in Uni-Ter litigation that raised claims similar to those in the current suit.
- After disputes over a buyout option beginning in 2007, Pierce later represented Shuttleworth in buyout efforts and ultimately appeared as counsel for Defendants in the 2010–2011 litigation.
- Plaintiffs notified Pierce of a potential conflict in July 2012 and moved to disqualify him in February 2013; the trial court granted disqualification.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pierce should be disqualified for prior representation | Pierce previously represented RSG/Rankin in substantially related matters and had confidential knowledge; disqualification required | Right to counsel of choice and no abuse of discretion; prior matters not substantially related enough | Court affirmed disqualification: prior representation was substantially related; appearance of impropriety existed |
| Whether motion to disqualify was timely | Plaintiffs argued delay did not prejudice Defendants and conflict seriousness outweighed delay | Defendants argued Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed (11–18 months) and waived objection | Court found delay troubling but not dispositive; little prejudice and conflict seriousness supported disqualification |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before disqualification | Plaintiffs relied on submitted affidavits/documents and oral argument; no mandatory hearing needed | Defendants requested a hearing and asked for remand if none held | Court held no per se rule requiring evidentiary hearing; record (affidavits, documents, argument) was sufficient |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion | Plaintiffs contended trial court acted properly under ethics rules and precedent | Defendants claimed abuse of discretion in applying Rule 1.9 and related standards | Court held there was no abuse of discretion given facts and seriousness of conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Duvall v. Bledsoe, 274 Ga. App. 256 (disqualification review rests within trial court's discretion)
- Clough v. Richelo, 274 Ga. App. 129 (trial courts should balance right to counsel against ethical concerns)
- Crawford W. Long Mem. Hosp. of Emory Univ. v. Yerby, 258 Ga. 720 (representing a client against a former client in a substantially similar matter creates an appearance of impropriety requiring disqualification)
- Rescigno v. Vesali, 306 Ga. App. 610 (Georgia Rule 1.9 bars representation adverse to a former client in substantially related matters)
- Cardinal Robotics v. Moody, 287 Ga. 18 (party seeking disqualification must show material and logical connection between prior and current representations)
- Ga. Baptist Health Care Sys. v. Hanafi, 253 Ga. App. 540 (timeliness factors for disqualification motions and weighing prejudice vs. seriousness of conflict)