P sued Firestone (D) for alleged defects in their truck tire products. P charged D with various negligent, willful, or intentional failures to correct or to warn of supposed defects in the rims. The lawyer for P was insured by Home Insurance Co., and Home was listed as an occasional client of the lawyer, and he also represented the insurer on matters unrelated to the current litigation. D filed a motion to disqualify Respondent from further representation of P. D argued that Respondent had a motive to structure any relief for Ps in such a manner as to enable Home to avoid any liability and thus increasing their own. Respondent filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had informed both Ps and Home of the potential conflict and neither objected to it. Respondent was allowed to continue to represent Ps. D objected and filed notice of appeal pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1291. The Eighth Circuit decided the case en banc and affirmed the trial court's order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.