Plein v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 195 Wn. 2d 636

462 P.3d 134 (2020) · Supreme Court of the State of Washington · May 21, 2020 · No. 97563-9

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a law firm’s prior representation of USAA was not the same as or substantially related to its representation of the Pleins in an insurance bad-faith action under RPC 1.9(a). The court ruled that the former client bears the burden of showing a substantial relationship and that USAA failed to demonstrate a substantial risk that confidential factual information would materially advance the Pleins’ case. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision denying disqualification.

Holdings

  1. The former client seeking disqualification bears the burden of proving that the former and current matters are the same or substantially related.
  2. Under current RPC 1.9(a) and comments 2 and 3, matters are substantially related when they involve the same transaction or legal dispute, or when there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information normally obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the current client's position.
  3. Keller's prior representations of USAA were not the same as or substantially related to the Plein matter, so RPC 1.9(a) did not require Keller's disqualification.
  4. RPC 1.9(c) independently prohibits a lawyer from using or disclosing former-client information, but it does not itself prohibit representation in a matter that is not substantially related; there is no separate duty of loyalty under RPC 1.9 that automatically bars all adverse representation of a former client.

Questions Presented

  1. Which party bears the burden of proving that the former and current representations are the same or substantially related under RPC 1.9(a)?
  2. Whether Keller Rohrback's prior representations of USAA were the same as or substantially related to the Pleins' action so as to prohibit Keller from representing the Pleins under RPC 1.9(a).
  3. Whether general knowledge of USAA's policies, practices, and litigation strategies or a general duty of loyalty independently required Keller's disqualification.
  4. Whether RPC 1.9(c)'s restrictions on use or disclosure of former-client information independently barred the Keller attorneys' representation of the Pleins.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (23)

  • Plein v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 9 Wn. App. 2d 407, 445 P.3d 574 (2019)(reversed)
  • State v. Hunsaker, 74 Wn. App. 38, 43-45, 873 P.2d 540 (1994)(limited)
  • Sanders v. Woods, 121 Wn. App. 593, 597-98, 89 P.3d 312 (2004)(limited)
  • Teja v. Saran, 68 Wn. App. 793, 846 P.2d 1375 (1993)(limited)
  • Wallace v. Evans, 131 Wn. 2d 572, 577, 934 P.2d 662 (1997)(followed)
  • State v. Nickels, 195 Wn. 2d 132, 136, 456 P.3d 795 (2020)(followed)
  • Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn. 2d 451, 457-58, 824 P.2d 1207 (1992)(followed)
  • In re Firestorm 1991, 129 Wn. 2d 130, 135, 916 P.2d 411 (1996)(followed)
  • State v. Tatum, 74 Wn. App. 81, 86, 871 P.2d 1123 (1994)(followed)
  • Public Utility District No. 1 of Klickitat County v. International Insurance Co., 124 Wn. 2d 789, 812, 881 P.2d 1020 (1994)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court Of The State