Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s attorney in instant Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) action because said attorney had previously defended defendant in similar FCRA lawsuits in over 250 cases that spanned four-year period and concerned over 4,000 billed hours. Dist. Ct. could properly find that Rule 1.9 of Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct applied with respect to instant disqualification request, and that Rule 1.9 did not require disqualification of plaintiff’s attorney, where: (1) instant lawsuit did not involve same transaction or dispute as prior cases in which plaintiff’s attorney had worked for defendant; and (2) attorney’s representation of plaintiff in instant lawsuit did not involve substantial risk that attorney would use confidential information that attorney may have gained while working for defendant to materially advance plaintiff’s claims, where said attorney had not represented defendant for over 10 years. Moreover, attorney’s general knowledge of client’s policies and practices will not ordinarily preclude subsequent representation in case opposing client. (Partial dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Disqualification