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

P hired Gilbane (D) to do construction work as the general and D sub-contracted with Pierce (D) and Furlow (D). P sued D on various issues, and Pierce and Furlow were drawn into the litigation. P filed a motion to disqualify counsel for Pierce, (the Biggs law firm) when it was discovered that t a Biggs lawyer, Bradley, had worked for the Berg law firm who had represented Furlow when the litigation began. Bradley became involved in that litigation in April 1984, when he assisted Berg, who 'made all decisions regarding the representation of Furlow.' Bradly was involved preparing for a 'mini-trial' among the parties in efforts to reach a settlement agreement. Bradley prepared the materials for a set of books to be distributed to the party participants and the arbitrator. Bradley also reviewed documents for Furlow, which included documents produced by P. Presently (November 1, 1985) Bradley has no recollection of the content or existence of any documents that potentially were covered either by the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Biggs was completely innocent of any knowledge of Bradley's involvement in the litigation, as was Bradley of Biggs' until Bradley met Jack Rephan, Pierce's main counsel when Rephan visited Biggs' offices. Bradley and his superiors at Biggs immediately decided that Bradley would have no contact with the Pierce litigation. P moved for disqualification. Pierce argues that an attorney-client relationship never existed between Bradley and P and contends therefore that there is no conflict of interest and also asserts a Chinese Wall has been erected around Bradley which should allow Biggs to continue its representation.

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.