Kentucky: Attorney Disqualified Due to a Conflict of Interest Between Parties

Link: Lovell v. Winchester
Appellants: Richard Clay
Appellee: Jerry D. Winchester
Justice: Graves
Facts:
o Pursuant to CR 76.36, the Appellants request the court issue a writ of mandamus which would order the trial court to disqualify attorney Charles King as counsel for Minnie Kidd in their suit against Kidd in McCreary Circuit Court.
o Previously, the Appellants approached King about representing them in a claim regarding an alleged shortage of acreage in land purchased from Kidd.
o Attorney King declined to represent the clients. The clients retained another attorney and sued Kidd. Kidd obtained King as his attorney in the same lawsuit.
o The Appellants alleged a conflict of interest and moved to disqualify King. King stated he could recall nothing from his consultation with the Appellants and only knew of their encounter by checking an old office calendar.
o The circuit court refused to disqualify King and the Appellants sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals.
o Under KRE 503(a)(1) definition stated below, the court held that an individual who seeks legal services is entitled to the privilege regardless of if representation occurs or not. The Appellants consulted King with the intent that he would represent them in their case against Kidd.

Issue:
Is it a conflict of interest when an attorney who is representing a defendant in a lawsuit has previously consulted with the opposing party but does not recall the consultation?
Rule of law:
KRE 503(a)(1) defines a client as “a person . . . who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the lawyer.”
Holding:

The Court of Appeals mandated that the circuit court enter an order to disqualify attorney Charles E. King. The holding of the circuit court is reversed.