Foulke v. Knuck

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that an Ethical Rule 1.9(a) conflict of interest existed when the general subject matter of the prior representation was substantially related to the issues that would necessarily be resolved in the subsequent action
• accepting special action jurisdiction of denial of motion to disqualify opposing counsel
• former client need not prove confidential information was passed because model rule 1.9(a) is mandatory
• trial court’s denial of motion to disqualify counsel subject to abuse of discretion standard
• specific harm not required where 10 there is a “blatant violation of ER 1.9(a)” that “presents a conflict that is anything but 11 remote”
• disqualification may be avoided if hardship to new client far outweighs injustice to former client who requests disqualification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).