Pike County , MS v. Indeck Magnolia, LLC
Filing
14
ORDER granting 5 Motion to Disqualify. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 29, 2011. (jsm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
PIKE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
By its Board of Supervisors
V.
PLAINTIFF
Civil Action No.: 3:11-cv-057-TSL-MTP
INDECK MAGNOLIA, LLC
DEFENDANT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
This matter is before the court on the [5] Motion to Disqualify of Defendant Indeck
Magnolia, LLC (“Indeck”). Having considered the submissions of both parties and applicable
legal standards, the court finds that the [5] motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED.
Factual Background
On October 15, 2008, Indeck purchased a sixteen acre tract of property from Plaintiff
Pike County, Mississippi. According to Indeck, an attorney-client relationship was formed at this
time between Indeck and Wayne Dowdy, counsel for Pike County in the instant suit–a
relationship which allegedly continued until 2010. Indeck further alleges that the initial scope of
representation by Wayne Dowdy and his firm, Dowdy Cockerham & Watt, was to facilitate
Indeck’s purchase of the sixteen acres by the following means: negotiating the purchase of the
property from Pike County, presiding over the closing, preparing the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Settlement Statement, and preparing the Title Insurance
Policy in the amount of $128,400. Def.’s Ex. A. [5-1]; Ex. B. [5-2]. After Indeck acquired the
property, Dowdy assisted in acquiring and executing a second Title Insurance Policy and HUD
Settlement Statement. Def.’s Ex. D. [5-4]; Ex. E. [5-5].
In June 2010 Dowdy assisted Indeck again by preparing and issuing a Certificate of Title
for the sixteen acre parcel for the purpose of marketing the property for sale. Def.’s Ex. I [5-9] at
2. On or about December 14, 2010, Indeck contacted Dowdy and requested another title search of
the sixteen acres, as well as a Certificate of Title, in preparation for an upcoming sale of the
property to Investar Redevelopment, LLC (“Investar”). Indeck informed Dowdy that the closing
of the sale of the property to Investar was to take place by the end of December 2010. Id.
On December 22, 2010, Dowdy, acting as attorney for Pike County, brought a lawsuit
against Indeck alleging that Indeck violated its 2008 contractual agreement with Pike County to
build a facility on the sixteen acres within two years of the purchase date, or alternatively, to give
Pike County the option of re-purchasing the property. See Complaint [1-1]. According to Indeck,
Dowdy revealed to Pike County confidential client information regarding the upcoming sale of
the sixteen acres in violation of Rule 1.6 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct and
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.1 Moreover, Indeck contends that Dowdy violated
Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 2 and 1.93 by representing Pike County, whose
1
Both rules, in pertinent part, state: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the
representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent....”
2
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse
to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes: (1) the representation will not adversely affect
the relationship with the other client; and (2) each client has given knowing and informed consent after
consultation. The consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the adverse representation
and the advantages and risks involved.
3
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (a) represent
another in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person' interests are materially adverse
s
to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation; or (b) use
information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6
would permit with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.
2
interests are adverse to Indeck’s interests. As a result of these alleged violations, the instant
motion [5] seeks to disqualify Dowdy and his firm, Dowdy Cockerham & Watt, from
representing Plaintiff Pike County, Mississippi.
To the contrary, Pike County argues that the option agreement for the purchase of the
sixteen acres executed between Indeck Magnolia and Pike County was negotiated by and through
counsel for Indeck, Wendy Taube, and Dowdy–who at all times served solely as the attorney for
Pike County. Pike County maintains that the only communications Dowdy had with Indeck were
by and through Indeck’s legal representative, Ms. Taube. Dowdy attested that, as was the case in
the instant suit, he routinely performs title work as a courtesy to prospective economic investors
who seek to purchase real property from Pike County. Dowdy maintains that there was never an
attorney-client relationship between himself and Indeck. Pl.’s Ex. A [12-1] at 1-2.
Legal Standards
“[M]otions to disqualify are substantive motions affecting the rights of the parties and are
determined by applying standards developed under federal law. Federal courts may adopt state or
American Bar Association (“ABA”) rules as their ethical standards, but whether and how these
rules are to be applied are questions of federal law.” In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605,
610 (5th Cir.1992)(citations omitted). The United States District Courts for the Northern District
and Southern District of Mississippi have adopted the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.
Owens v. First Family Financial Services, Inc., 379 F. Supp.2d 840, 845 (S.D. Miss. 2005); see
also L.U. Civ. R. 83.5 (“An attorney who makes an appearance in any case in the district court is
bound by the provisions of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct and is subject to
discipline for violating them.”).
3
As previously noted, Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, in pertinent part,
states: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the
client gives informed consent....”
Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 states:
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be
directly adverse to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes: (1) the
representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client has given knowing and informed consent after consultation. The
consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the adverse
representation and the advantages and risks involved.
Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 states:
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (a)
represent another in the same or a substantially related matter in which that
person' interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless
s
the former client consents after consultation; or (b) use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 would
permit with respect to a client or when the information has become generally
known.
In considering a motion to disqualify counsel, the court employs the following analysis:
“whether a conflict has (1) the appearance of impropriety in general, or (2) a possibility that a
specific impropriety will occur, and (3) the likelihood of public suspicion from the impropriety
outweighs any social interests which will be served by the lawyer' continued participation in the
s
case.” Owens, 379 F. Supp.2d at 846 (quoting In re Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th
Cir.1992)). Moreover, a motion seeking to disqualify opposing counsel on the basis of prior
representation is subject to the “substantial relationship” test, which consists of the following two
elements: “(1) an actual attorney-client relationship between the moving party and the attorney he
seeks to disqualify and (2) a substantial relationship between the subject matter of the former and
4
present representations.” In re American Airlines, 972 F.2d at 614.
Analysis
Dowdy maintains that, as was the case in this matter, he has frequently negotiated with
prospective economic investors on behalf of Pike County in matters concerning the sale of real
property by the county and has performed title work as an accommodation to these investors.
However, Mr. Dowdy continued to perform title work for Indeck after they purchased the sixteen
acres, as evidenced by the certificates of title he issued in June 2010 and December 2010 and
collected fees from Indeck for these services. See Def.’s Ex. P [13-4]; Ex. Q [13-5]. On
December 14, 2010, Dowdy completed a title search and certificate of title and was informed by
Indeck that the certificate of title was needed to sell the sixteen acres to Investar. Def.’s Ex. I [59] at 2. On December 22, 2010, Dowdy represented Pike County in filing suit against Indeck, as
well as a Lis Pendens notice–thereby clouding the title and preventing the sale of this same
property.
The court finds that Indeck has met its burden as to the substantial relationship test in that
there was an actual attorney-client relationship between Indeck and Mr. Dowdy and there is a
substantial relationship between the subject matter of the former and present representations. See
In re American Airlines, 972 F.2d at 614; see also Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct
1.9(a). The work Dowdy performed for the purpose of Indeck’s purchase and attempted sale of
the sixteen acres was directly related to the terms of 2008 purchase agreement between Indeck
and Pike County, which is at issue in the instant suit. “[O]nce it is established that the prior
matters are substantially related to the present case, ‘the court will irrebuttably presume that
relevant confidential information was disclosed during the former period of representation.’”
5
Owens, 379 F.Supp.2d at 850 (quoting In re American Airlines, 972 F.2d at 614). Indeed, emails
included with the materials submitted by Indeck confirm that Indeck received advice from
Dowdy in 2008 about the very issues and agreement which now form the basis for the lawsuit.
See Def.’s Ex. G [5-7].4
Moreover, Indeck disclosed to Dowdy the pending sale to Investar and asked him to
perform title work in connection with the sale. He performed the work and charged Indeck for it.
He now seeks, with that information in hand, to represent Pike County in a lawsuit to effectively
prevent the very transaction which Indeck paid him to facilitate. This he cannot do.
Considering the forgoing and noting that Indeck declines to waive any conflict of interest,
the court finds that Indeck’s [5] Motion to Disqualify should be GRANTED.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s [5] motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s counsel Wayne Dowdy,
and his firm, Dowdy Cockerham & Watt, are hereby disqualified from further
participation in the case; and
2.
Plaintiff Pike County, Mississippi is granted thirty (30) days to obtain new
counsel.
SO ORDERED, THIS the 29th day of April, 2011.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
4
The October 14, 2008 email concerning the purchase agreement from Wendy Taube, in-house
counsel for Indeck, to Indeck President Gerald DeNotto reads, in pertinent part: “The PikeIndeck
Agreement is language taken out of the Deed that says if we don’t build in 2 years they can buy back.
Wayne said if we decided to not build and sell the property to someone else, this language would cause
us problems if in the deed, so Wayne took it out and put it in a separate agreement that they will hold on
to.” Def.’s Ex. G [5-7] at 1.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?