Skycasters sued Didado Electric for breach of contract in a dispute over electrical work on its satellite dish.  Prior to trial, Skycasters moved to disqualify Didado’s attorneys because they had helped an agent for Skycasters obtain a zoning variance to allow it to install the satellite dish. The trial court denied the motion and a jury found for Didado so Skycasters appealed alleging, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify Didado’s lawyers for a conflict of interest. Specifically, Skycasters alleged that since Didado’s attorneys represented a company named V-Static in acquiring a zoning change for Skycaster’s property so it could install the satellite dish which Didado was hired to connect. Skycasters argued that V-Static is a subsidiary of Skycasts and that the law firm’s work on the zoning matter allowed the attorneys to learn about Skycasters’ business and the property where Didado performed its electrical work.

                       

The Appeals Court noted that attorney disqualification is a drastic measure to be imposed only where absolutely necessary, and that “A mere allegation that allowing the representation presents a possibility of a breach of confidence is not enough.” A prerequisite for disqualification based on a conflict of interest arising from the representation of a former client exists where there is a substantial relationship between the subject matter of the former representation and the matter encompassed by the present representation.  In this instance, it was determined that V-Static is a separate company from Skycasters and although Skycasters’ owner was a member of V-Static, that was six years ago and Skycasters’ owner no longer has an ownership interest in V-Static, and today the relationship is an “arm’s-length” relationship.  As a result, the Court concluded that the trial court was correct in determining that Didado’s attorneys should not be disqualified. The Court held that although the attorney assisted V-Static in obtaining a zoning change for Skycasters’ property, based upon the fact that both V-Static’s and Skycasters were independent companies and Skycasters’ owner’s relationship with V-Static was at arms length,  “Skycasters, therefore, failed to establish that there was a prior attorney-client relationship between it and Didado’s attorneys.”

 

Skycasters, LLC v J.W. Didado Electric, Inc., 2008 WL 4335496 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 9/24/2008).

 

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2008/2008-ohio-4849.pdf