DocketNumber: No. CV 92-0449540S CV 92-0450101S CV 92-0449538S CV 92-0449539S CV 92-0449541S CV 92-0449542S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6996
Judges: O'NEILL, J.
Filed Date: 7/24/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The law firm of David M. Somers Associates, P.C. ("Somers") represents all the plaintiffs in the above captioned actions. The Small Business Institute, Inc. ("SBI") and Rhonda Farrah ("Farrah") are defendants in each action and it is alleged in each (1) that the plaintiffs paid a processing fee to the defendants SBI and Farrah in order to secure loans; and (2) the processing fees were paid but loans were never advanced to the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, fraud, CUTPA violations and tortious interference with contract.
Somers has previously represented Farrah or SBI variously in eviction, foreclosure, collection, and divorce proceedings. Somers has now filed a separate action against Farrah and SBI alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of Somers itself, entitled David M. Somers Associates v. Small Business Institute, Inc., CV 92-0449542S, to collect legal fees owed Somers.
The cases outlined above present three distinct ethical questions. The first question is whether an attorney may sign a writ in his own case. In Doolittle v. Clark,
The next issue is whether Somers, who formerly represented Farrah and SBI in other actions, may now represent CT Page 6997 other parties in actions against them. Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides:
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(a) Represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.
"Under the substantial relationship portion of the test, disqualification is the proper sanction only upon a showing that the relationship between the issues in the prior and present cases is patently clear or where the issues are essentially the same." State v. Bunkley,
The final ethical issue to be considered concerns whether Somers may represent other parties against Farrah and SBI while he has his own case pending against Farrah and SBI. Rule 1.7(b) provides as follows:
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) The lawyer reasonably believes CT Page 6998 the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) The client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantage and risks involved.
An inherent conflict of interest is present when an attorney who has his own action pending against certain defendants also represents other parties in lawsuits against those defendants. The conflict manifests itself in situations involving attachments, judgment liens and the ultimate collection of damages. An attorney who represents others must be primarily concerned that his client shall collect the full amount of any judgment he obtains against the defendants. When he does that he is acting to the detriment of any claim that he may have on his own behalf against the defendants. That is a conflict. "The lawyer's own interests should not be permitted to have adverse effect on representation of a client." Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 comment.
In the cases now before the court, there is no evidence which would indicate that the attorney would only seek to collect on a judgment after his clients had collected on any judgment in their favor. Thus, the attorney's own interest conflicts with those of his clients and disqualification is both appropriate and necessary under Rule 1.7(b).
Accordingly, Mr. Somers is disqualified from acting as counsel in the cases of The New Original Dave's Bagels, Inc. v. Small Business Institute, Inc., et al, CV 92-0449540S, Joe Addison, et al v. Small Business Institute, Inc., et al, CV 92-0450101S, James Hadgkiss, et al v. Small Business Institute, Inc., et al, CV 92-0449538S, TCE Corporation v. Small Business Institute, Inc., et al, CV 92-0449539S, Lawrence Nordgren, et al v. Small Business Institute, Inc., et al, CV 92-0449541S.
NORRIS L. O'NEILL JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT CT Page 6999