Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
At the pretrial stage of the case, the district court disqualified attorney Patrick Og O’Malley from further representation of his client, Good Life Colorado LLC, because O’Malley’s testimony was “relevant, material[,] and unobtainable elsewhere” and was “critical to establishing the outcome of the case.”
Good Life appealed the court’s order disqualifying O’Malley from further representation of Good Life in this case. Good Life contended that Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) doesn’t apply to cases, such as this one, that are set for a bench trial rather than a jury trial.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that CRPC 3.7 can apply to cases set for a bench trial, as well as jury trials. It found that it didn’t need to consider whether the court erred by applying the rule to the nontrial portions of this case.
In addition, Good Life contended that O’Malley wasn’t subject to disqualification because the court didn’t find that his continued representation of Good Life would cause “prejudice to any stakeholder.” It also argued that courts should take a cynical view of an adverse party’s motion for disqualification when that adverse party is also the party seeking the attorney’s testimony, that the disqualification order rested on obsolete authority, that the court lacked authority to disqualify O’Malley from all further representation of Good Life and that O’Malley’s disqualification resulted in “substantial hardship” to Good Life.
The appeals court found the court didn’t abuse its discretion by granting the disqualification motion.
Good Life also appealed the court’s denial of two motions it filed after the court dismissed Good Life’s claims with prejudice and the court’s order granting the motion of the defendant, WLCO LLC, to add Chooze Corp. as a third party. Both Good Life and WLCO sought awards of attorney fees.
The appeals court disagreed with Good Life that the court erred by entering the dismissal order. It didn’t consider whether the court erred by joining Chooze.
The appeals court affirmed and declined to award attorney fees to either party to this appeal. But because it affirmed, it found that WLCO was entitled to an award of its costs incurred on appeal.