In an adverse possession case, a defense lawyer's testimony that he and his law firm do not currently represent the plaintiff or possess confidential information detrimental to the plaintiff and did not previously furnish legal advice to the plaintiff about adverse possession or land use concerning the subject property can be sufficient to defeat a motion to disqualify. The plaintiff, Gail Murray, brought an adverse possession complaint against the defendant, Lynn Simko, and moved to disqualify Simko's law firm, Willinger, Willinger & Bucci. Murray alleged that the Willinger law firm previously represented the plaintiff in an adverse possession action that involved the same piece of property as that involved in the current suit. Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides, "A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: 1.) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or 2.) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer." The court credited name partner Thomas Bucci's testimony that he and his law firm do not currently represent the plaintiff or possess confidential information that is detrimental to the plaintiff's position; and that they did not previously furnish advice about adverse possession or land use concerning the subject property. "[T]he plaintiff," wrote the court, "has failed to offer any credible evidence to show that the prior adverse possession claim against Mariners Walk and the present adverse possession claim against the defendant are substantially related or that the firm's prior representation resulted or would result in the communication of any confidential information." The court den

VIEW FULL CASE