ÿWPCi …# VUNa %¯ 0cµU< w@T 4” ¨ · 0J¿ 0T 0^] 0h» 0r# 0|• 0† 0— 1u' 0dœ U>B)>DCg AMªU*÷H! 0DiU6­ Bãv~vÓ~ D3Q 0@„ AOÄÆ 0DÙ D/ BL˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman &'(E)*E+,D-.î/Ó€Úƒç",3|x:2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ10,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(Courier New dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¼ñXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßR€ "A1-j| ` à. `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€KNOXVILLEÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òTRACY€WATSON€and€DEAN€WATSON,ÌIndividually€and€as€Next€Friends€Ìand€Natural€Guardians€of€TAYLOR€ÌWATSON,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à àà àà àBradley€Circuit€No.€V„96„590ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€03„A„01„9704„CV„00129ÌÌò òFAYE€AMEREDES,€D.O.,€CHEROKEEÌWOMENððS€CENTER,€P.C.,€TED€ÌAMEREDES,€D.O.,€CLEVELAND€ÌANESTHESIOLOGISTS,€INC.,€andÌBRADLEY€MEMORIAL€HOSPITAL,ó óÌÌà àDefendants„Appellees.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€BRADLEY€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€B.€HAGLER,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà@ àGlenna€W.€Overton,€Donald€E.€Overton;Ìà@ àOverton€&€Overton€of€KnoxvilleÌà@ àFor€AppellantsÌÌà@ àHugh€J.€Moore,€Jr.;€Philip€B.€Whitaker,€Jr.Ìà@ àWitt,€Gaither€&€Whitaker,€P.C.€of€ChattanoogaÌà@ àFor€Appellee,€Faye€AmeredesÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌÑ7€¼ñXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€is€a€T.R.A.P.€9€interlocutory€appeal€from€the€order€of€the€trial€courtÏdisqualifying€some€of€plaintiffsðð€lawyers€from€further€representation€of€plaintiffsÏin€this€case.€€Ìà àThe€only€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€disqualifyingÏplaintiffsðð€counsel.€€The€parties€relied€on€affidavits€to€establish€the€facts€in€theÏtrial€court,€and€there€is€very€little€dispute.Ìà àLawyer,€Roger€Jenne,€of€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€was€retained€by€plaintiffs€toÏhandle€a€medical€malpractice€case€against€the€defendants,€Faye€Ameredes,€D.O.,ÏCherokee€Womenððs€Center,€P.C.,€Ted€Ameredes,€D.O.,€ClevelandÏAnesthesiologists,€Inc.,€and€Bradley€Memorial€Hospital.€€In€February,€1996,ÏJenne€associated€the€law€firm€of€Montgomery€and€Thompson€of€Knoxville,ÍTennessee€to€work€with€him€on€the€case.€€Montgomery€and€Thompson€is€aÏpartnership€of€two€lawyers;€Dr.€J.€Tucker€Montgomery€and€Debra€A.€Thompson,Ïspecializing€in€handling€plaintiff€medical€malpractice€cases.€€Dr.€MontgomeryÏhas€an€M.D.€degree,€and€Ms.€Thompson€is€a€graduate€physical€therapist.€€AÏcomplaint€filed€July€2,€1996,€alleges€acts€of€malpractice€against€the€variousÏdefendants€prior€to,€during,€and€after€the€delivery€of€the€infant€plaintiff,€TaylorÏWatson,€which€resulted€in€personal€injuries€to€the€infant.€€à àIn€July,€1996,Ïthe€law€firm€of€Robinson,€Smith€&€Wells€was€retained€by€Faye€AmeredesððsÏinsurance€carrier€to€represent€her€and€Cherokee€Womenððs€Center€in€the€case.€ÏDefendants,€Ted€Ameredes€and€Cleveland€Anesthesiologist,€Inc.,€wereÏrepresented€by€another€law€firm€and€Bradley€Memorial€Hospital€by€yet€anotherÏlaw€firm.€€Robinson,€Smith€&€Wells€assigned€the€case€to€lawyers,€James€D.ÏRobinson€and€Timothy€M.€Pierce.€€€Mr.€Pierce€began€work€on€the€case€on€JulyÏ19,€1996.€€Earlier€in€July,€1996,€Mr.€Pierce€began€actively€seeking€employmentÏoutside€the€Chattanooga,€Tennessee€area,€and€on€July€12,€1996,€sent€a€resume€toÏMontgomery€and€Thompson€in€Knoxville.€€Mr.€Pierce€met€with€Dr.ÏMontgomery€and€Ms.€Thompson€on€July€21,€1996,€to€discuss€employmentÏpossibilities,€but€on€July€22,€1996,€Mr.€Pierce€was€informed€by€them€that€theyÏdid€not€wish€to€expand€their€practice.€€On€July€23,€1996,€Mr.€Pierce€contactedÍthe€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility€to€inquire€as€to€whether€he€shouldÏwithdraw€from€the€Watson€case€since€he€had€been€in€contact€with€MontgomeryÏand€Thompson€concerning€employment,€and€he€was€advised€that€until€there€wasÏa€formal€offer€of€employment€he€could€continue€to€work€on€the€Watson€case.€ÏOn€November€5,€1996,€Dr.€Montgomery,€Ms.€Thompson,€and€Mr.€Pierce€agreedÏto€form€a€new€partnership€named€Montgomery,€Thompson€&€Pierce€to€beginÏpractice€on€January€1,€1997.€€On€November€6,€1996,€Mr.€Pierce€notified€his€lawÏfirm,€Robinson,€Smith€&€Wells,€of€his€resignation€with€the€request€that€he€beÏinsulated€from€any€case€involving€Montgomery€and€Thompson,€including€theÏWatson€case.€€During€the€period€of€time€from€July€19,€1996€to€November€6,Ï1996,€Dr.€Ameredes€met€personally€with€Mr.€Pierce€on€two€occasions€and€hadÏtelephone€conversations€with€him€on€at€least€five€occasions.€€During€theseÏmeetings€and€telephone€conversations,€she€communicated€informationÏconcerning€the€litigation.€€€Mr.€Pierce€used€the€information€acquired€from€hisÏclient,€Dr.€Ameredes,€to€prepare€the€answer€in€defense€of€the€litigation.€€InÏaddition€to€drafting€the€answer,€Mr.€Pierce€had€communications€with€otherÏphysicians,€other€counsel€for€defendants€and€started€preparing€discoveryÏmatters.Ìà àMr.€Pierceððs€discussions€and€negotiations€with€Montgomery€andÍThompson€continued€during€the€period€he€was€representing€Dr.€Ameredes,€butÏMontgomery€and€Thompson€and€Pierce€maintain€there€was€no€discussionÏconcerning€the€case€and€that€it€was€clearly€understood€there€would€be€noÏdiscussion€at€any€time€concerning€the€case.€€They€state€further€that€when€theyÏdecided€to€form€the€new€firm,€they€agreed€that€there€would€be€a€separateÏchecking€account€for€the€purposes€of€expenses€associated€with€this€case;€thatÏMontgomery€and€Thompson,€a€partnership,€would€remain€an€active€partnershipÏfor€the€purpose€of€handling€this€case;€that€Pierce€would€have€nothing€at€all€toÏdo€with€it;€and€that€a€ð ðChinese€Wallðð€would€be€maintained€to€isolate€Mr.€PierceÏfrom€any€connection€whatsoever€with€the€Watson€file.€€Opinions€of€AttorneyÏWilliam€Hunt,€III,€disciplinary€counsel€for€the€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility€and€Professor€Carl€Pierce€from€the€University€of€TennesseeÏCollege€of€Law€were€filed€to€the€effect€that€there€were€no€ethical€violations€byÏeither€Montgomery€and€Thompson€or€Mr.€Pierce.€€Professor€Pierce€also€opinedÏthat€he€had€reviewed€the€screening€mechanism€instituted€by€Montgomery€andÏThompson€and€Mr.€Pierce€and€that€they€were€in€compliance€with€Formal€EthicsÏOpinion,€89„F„118.€€(March€10,€1989).Ìà àDefendant€Ameredesððs€motion€to€disqualify€Montgomery€and€ThompsonÏwas€argued€on€February€3,€1997.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€andÍdisqualified€Montgomery€and€Thompson€with€respect€to€defendant€FayeÏAmeredes€only.€€Defendant€Ameredes€filed€a€supplemental€motion€to€disqualifyÏMontgomery€and€Thompson€from€the€case€entirely,€and€that€motion,€along€withÏa€plaintiffsðð€motion€for€reconsideration,€was€heard€on€March€3,€1997.€ÏSubsequently,€the€court€entered€its€order€disqualifying€Montgomery€andÏThompson€from€further€representation€of€plaintiff€in€the€case€and€certified€anÏinterlocutory€appeal€which€was€then€granted€by€this€Court.Ìà àPlaintiffs€first€assert€that€the€motion€to€disqualify€was€not€timely€filedÏand€was€€made€for€the€purposes€of€delay.€€However,€it€appears€that€the€motionÏwas€filed€January€17,€1997,€and€plaintiffsðð€counsel€was€notified€in€the€middle€ofÏDecember,€1996,€that€the€motion€would€be€filed€to€disqualify€them€fromÏfurther€participation€in€the€case.€€We€do€not€see€any€inordinate€delay€in€theÏrecord€in€this€case.Ìà àPlaintiffs€next€assert€that€the€action€by€the€court€was€the€most€drasticÏoption€the€court€had,€and€that€the€court€properly€should€have€allowed€theÏcontinued€representation€by€Montgomery€and€Thompson€with€the€stringentÏconditions€of€isolation€that€had€been€instituted.€€Plaintiffs€argue€that€theyÏshould€be€able€to€rely€upon€the€advice€they€received€from€disciplinary€boardÏattorneys.€€€Moreover,€they€assert€that€their€compliance€with€Formal€EthicsÍOpinion€89„F„118€eliminates€any€reason€for€disqualification.€€Ìà àRule€8€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€establishes€a€Code€ofÏProfessional€Responsibility€consisting€of€three€separate€but€interelated€parts:€ÏCanonððs,€Ethical€Considerations,€and€Disciplinary€Rules.€€The€CodeððsÏPreliminary€Statement€provides€that€the€Canonððs,€Ethical€Considerations,€andÏDisciplinary€Rules€ð ðdo€define€the€type€of€ethical€conduct€that€the€public€has€aÏright€to€expect€not€only€of€lawyers€but€also€of€their€non„professional€employeesÏand€associates€in€all€matters€pertaining€to€professional€employment.ðð€ÏFurthermore,€ð ð[a]n€enforcing€agency,€in€applying€the€Disciplinary€Rules,€mayÏfind€interpretative€guidance€in€the€basic€principles€embodied€in€the€Canons€andÏin€the€objectives€reflected€in€the€Ethical€Considerations.ððÌà àRule€9€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee€pertains€to€discipline€ofÏlawyers€and€also€provides€for€the€establishment€of€three€regional€EthicsÏCommittees€authorized€to€issue€ð ðFormal€Ethics€Opinions.ðð€€Ethics€OpinionsÏð ðissued€and€published€by€the€Supreme€Court€Ethics€Committee€shall€bind€theÏcommittee,€the€person€requesting€and€the€Supreme€Court€Board€of€ProfessionalÏResponsibility,€and€shall€constitute€a€body€of€principles€and€objectives€uponÏwhich€members€of€the€bar€can€rely€for€guidance€in€many€specific€situations.ðð€ÏRule€9,€Section€26.5€(a),€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court.Ìà àThe€controversy€before€us€emanates€from€Canons€4€and€9.€€Canon€4Ïprovides:€€€ð ðA€lawyer€should€preserve€the€confidences€and€secrets€of€a€client.ðð€ÏCanon€9€provides:€ð ðA€lawyer€should€avoid€even€the€appearance€of€professionalÏimpropriety.ðð€€€A€lawyer€cannot€represent€someone€against€a€former€client€whenÏthere€is€a€substantial€relationship€between€the€subject€matter€of€the€new€actionÏand€the€action€in€which€the€lawyer€represented€the€former€client.€€ò òòòManning€v.ÏFort€Deposit€Bankó óóó,€619€F.€Supp.€1327€(D.€Tenn.€1985);€òòò òMills€v.€Craneó óóó,€C.A.€No.Ï66,€1987€WL€9165€€(Tenn.€App.,€E.S.,€April€10,€1987).€€€Formal€Ethics€OpinionÏ81„F„5€(April€17,€1981)€concerns€the€disqualification€of€a€law€firm€when€one€ofÏthe€firmððs€lawyers€is€disqualified,€and€the€committee€opined€that€ð ðwhen€anÏattorney€is€barred€from€representation€on€the€grounds€of€knowledge€actually€orÏpresumably€acquired€from€a€formal€representation,€then€his€entire€firm€isÏsimilarly€barred.ðð€€This€rule€was€made€applicable€to€paralegals€in€Formal€EthicsÏOpinion€87„F„110.€€In€Formal€Ethics€Opinion€89„F„118€issued€March€10,€1989,Ïthe€committee€was€answering€an€inquiry€ð ðconcerning€clarification€of€FormalÏEthics€Opinions€81„F„5€and€87„F„110€and€the€application€of€screeningÏprocedures€as€a€viable€method€to€avoid€the€imputed€disqualification€provisionÏof€DR€5„105(D)€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility.ðð€€The€OpinionÏstates:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€The€board€adopts€the€Seventh€Circuitððs€three„stepÏanalysis,€outlined€in€òòSchiessle€v.€Stephensóó,€717€F.2d€atÏ420„421,€concerning€motions€to€disqualify€counsel.€ÏThat€analysis€requires€a€determination€ofÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€1.€€whether€a€substantial€relationship€existsÏbetween€the€subject€matter€of€the€former€and€presentÏrepresentations;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€2.€€whether€the€presumption€of€shared€confidencesÏwhich€arises€from€its€determination€that€theÏrepresentations€are€substantially€related€has€beenÏrebutted€with€respect€to€the€òòformeróó€representation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€3.€€whether€the€presumption€of€shared€confidencesÏhas€been€rebutted€with€respect€to€the€òòpresentóóÏrepresentation.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€The€comment€to€Rule€1.9€of€the€ABA€Model€RulesÏof€Professional€Conduct€suggests€that€the€ð ðunderlyingÏquestion€[in€determining€whether€a€substantialÏrelationship€exists]€is€whether€the€lawyer€was€soÏinvolved€in€the€matter€that€the€subject€representationÏcan€be€justly€regarded€as€a€changing€of€sides€in€theÏmatter€in€question.ððÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€Screening€mechanisms€should€be€aimed€atÏconfining€disqualification€to€the€person€who€wasÏinvolved€in€the€substantially€related€matter€andÏtherefore€infected€with€or€tainted€by€privilegedÏinformation€which€is€the€source€of€the€ethicalÏproblem.€€Isolation€of€the€infected€person€would€allowÏthe€other€lawyers€and€support€personnel€in€the€firm€orÏoffice€to€assist€in€or€conduct€the€questionedÏrepresentation€free€from€any€taint€of€misuse€of€clientÏconfidences.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€The€board€approves€the€use€of€screeningÏprocedures€as€a€viable€method€to€avoid€the€imputedÏor€vicarious€disqualification€provisions€of€DR€5„105Ï(D).€€The€board€has€further€determined€that€theÏdisqualificaiton€rules€and€screening€procedures€areÏapplicable€to€lawyer,€law€clerk,€paralegal€and€legalÏsecretary.€€All€questions€as€to€the€sufficiency€of€theÏscreening€process€are€factual€issues€to€be€resolved€byÏð ðobjective€and€verifiable€evidence€presented€to€theÏtrial€courtðð€and€determined€ð ðon€a€case„by„case€basis.ððÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€Those€factors€which€the€board€approves€asÏappropriate€for€consideration€in€determining€whetherÏð ðspecific€institutional€screening€mechanismsðð€haveÏbeen€implemented€ð ðto€effectively€insulate€against€anyÏflow€of€confidential€information€from€the€quarantinedÏ[person]ðð€to€other€members€of€his€or€her€new€firmÏinclude€the€following:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€1.€€the€structural€organization€of€the€law€firm€orÏoffice€involved;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€2.€the€likelihood€of€contact€between€the€ð ðinfectedððÏperson€and€the€specific€attorneys€and€supportÏpersonnel€involved€in€the€present€representation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€3.€€the€existence€of€law€firm€or€office€rules€whichÏprevent€the€ð ðinfectedðð€personÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€€a.€€from€access€to€relevant€files€or€otherÏinformation€pertaining€to€the€present€litigation€andÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€€b.€€from€sharing€in€the€fees€derived€from€suchÏlitigation.ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌÓÓà àAlthough€the€ethics€opinions€are€not€binding€on€the€Court,€ò òòòState€v.ÏJonesó óóó,€726€S.W.2d€515,€519€(Tenn.€1987),€they€are€important€as€representingÏthe€acknowledged€standards€of€the€profession.€€However,€it€is€clear€and€theÏethics€committee€recognizes€that€the€determination€of€disqualification€is€to€beÏmade€by€the€trial€court€on€a€case€by€case€basis.Ìà àWe€are€mindful€of€the€competing€public€policy€interests€of€preservingÏclient€confidences€on€the€one€hand€and€on€the€other€hand€of€permitting€partiesÏto€have€counsel€of€their€choice.€€Ìà àPlaintiffs€correctly€argue€that€the€presumption€of€shared€confidences€canÏbe€rebutted€by€instituting€adequate€screening€procedures€commonly€termed€ð ðaÏChinese€Wall.ðð€€In€the€instant€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€lawyersÏinvolved€implemented€a€ð ðChinese€Wallðð€but€felt€that€because€of€the€small€sizeÏof€the€firm,€it€could€not€be€effective€to€the€extent€required.€€We€must€bear€inÏmind€that€the€problem€before€us€in€this€case€was€caused€entirely€by€theÏattorneys€that€now€seek€to€continue€representing€plaintiffs.€€Mr.€Pierce,€the€leadÏattorney€for€one€defendant,€prepared€the€original€answer€to€the€complaint,€andÏwe€must€conclude€that€he€conformed€to€the€requirements€of€Rule€11€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€and€obtained€all€necessary€informationÏconcerning€his€clientððs€case.€€Thus,€we€have€a€lawyer€that€knows€more€about€theÍdefendantððs€case€than€anybody€else,€is€privy€to€every€bit€of€confidentialÏinformation€available€from€his€client€and€then€joins€forces€with€the€lawyersÏsuing€his€client€for€twelve€million€dollars.€€These€attorneys€had€to€know€whenÏthey€made€their€arrangements€that€the€presumption€of€shared€confidence€wouldÏexist€and€that€this€sharp€scrutinty€would€come€to€pass.€€This€is€somewhatÏdifferent€from€the€situation€where€a€lawyer€is€on€the€periphery€of€a€case€as€anÏassociate€member€of€a€firm.€€Mr.€Pierce€was€the€defendantððs€lawyer€and€is€now€aÏpartner€with€the€lawyer€for€the€plaintiff.€€Ìà àJudge€Kochððs€concurring€opinion€in€the€unpublished€case€of€ò òòòKing€v.€KingÏó óóóstates:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€€However,€except€in€the€rarest€of€cases,€theÏappearance€of€impropriety€alone€is€ð ðsimply€too€slenderÏa€reed€on€which€to€rest€a€disqualification€order.ðð€€ToÏwarrant€disqualificaiton,€a€lawyerððs€conflict€of€interestÏmust€tend€to€taint€the€trialððs€fairnes€either€byÏundermining€the€courtððs€confidence€in€the€attorneyððsÏability€to€vigorously€represent€the€client€or€by€creatingÏa€reasonable€concern€that€the€attorney€will€give€theÏpresent€client€an€unfair€advantage€by€using€otherwiseÏprivileged€information€obtained€while€employed€byÏthe€former€client.€€òòò òBoard€of€Education€v.€Nyquistó óóó,€590ÏF.2d€at€1246„47.ÌÌÓÓò òòòKing€v.€Kingó óóó,€No.€89„46„11,€1989€WL€122981,€at€*13€(Tenn.€App.€M.S.€Oct.€18,Ï1989).€€Ìà àWe€do€not€disagree€with€Judge€Koch€but€perhaps€this€is€ð ðthe€rarest€ofÍcases.ðð€€€We€canððt€emphasize€too€strongly€that€we€are€dealing€with€the€lawyerÏfor€the€defendant,€the€one€in€the€trenches,€the€one€that€acquired€all€of€theÏconfidences€of€the€client€in€order€to€further€the€clientððs€interest.€€In€ourÏopinion,€the€appearance€of€impropriety€in€this€case€is€not€ð ðtoo€slender€a€reed.ðð€€ÏIn€ò òòòCardona€v.€General€Motors€Corp.ó óóó,€942€€F.Supp.€968€(D.N.J.€1996),€the€CourtÏwas€dealing€with€a€motion€to€disqualify€a€law€firm€representing€plaintiffs€againstÏGeneral€Motors€after€the€law€firm€hired€General€Motorsðð€former€counsel€inÏvarious€lemon„law€cases.€€The€Court€disqualified€plaintiffððs€law€firm€even€in€theÏface€of€screening€mechanisms€that€had€been€instituted.€€The€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€€Counsel€for€Appellants€has€advanced€theÏproposition€that€the€ð ðappearance€of€improprietyÏdoctrineðð€embodies€ð ðan€arbitrary€and€vague€standard.ðð€ÏAppellantsðð€Letter€Brief,€dated€July€23,€1996,€at€1.€ÏThis€challenge€to€the€doctrine€has€frequently€beenÏmade.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€óóCynthia€M.€Jacob,€òòA€Polemic€AgainstÏR.P.C.€1.7(c)(2):€The€ð ðAppearance€of€Improprietyðð€Rule,ÏóóN.J.€Lawyer€Magazine,€June€1996,€at€23.€€ThisÏargument,€however,€underestimates€the€capacities€ofÏthe€ð ðordinary€knowledgeable€citizenðð€who€elects€ourÏfederal,€state€and€local€governments,€sits€on€our€juries,Ïand€educates€our€children.€€What€would€such€a€citizenÏthink€upon€discoverying€that€a€lawyer,€Mr.€London,Ïwho€had€represented€GM€at€two€separate€law€firms,Ïover€a€period€of€five€years,€and€had€become€familiarÏwith€its€litigation€and€settlement€strategies,€and€hadÏformed€a€close€professional€relationship€with€GMððsÏlegal€personnel,€suddenly€ð ðswitched€sidesðð€to€join€a€lawÏfirm€which€regularly€sued€GM€and€had,€in€fact,€beenÏon€the€other€side€of€cases€in€which€London€hadÍrepresented€GM.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€The€answer,€I€respectfully€suggest,€would€be€theÏsame€answer€given€by€Magistrate€Judge€Kugler.€€At€theÏheart€of€every€ð ðside„switching€attorneyðð€case€is€theÏsuspicion€that€by€changing€sides,€the€attorney€hasÏbreached€a€duty€of€fidelity€and€loyalty€to€a€formerÏclient,€a€client€who€had€freely€shared€with€the€attorneyÏsecrets€and€confidences€with€the€expectation€that€theyÏwould€be€disclosed€to€no€one€else.€€It€is€for€this€reasonÏthat€the€ð ðappearance€of€impropriety€doctrineðð€wasÏadopted€to€protect€the€public,€our€profession,€andÏthose€it€serves.€€In€short,€this€much€maligned€doctrineÏexists€to€engender,€protect€and€preserve€the€trust€andÏconfidence€of€clients.€€Ìà8 àÌò òòòId.€ó óóóat€974„75.ÌÌÓÓÑ7€\¯XXdðXXdð7Ñà àCanon€9€was€accorded€great€weight€in€ò òòòPenn€Mutual€Life€Insurance€Co.€v.ÏCleveland€Mall€Associatesó óóó,€841€F.€Supp.€815€(E.D.€Tenn.€1993),€where€theÏCourt€had€for€consideration€a€motion€to€disqualify€plaintiffððs€counsel€after€theÏmerger€of€the€law€firm€representing€plaintiff€with€the€law€firm€representing€theÏdefendant.€€In€reaching€the€decision€that€plaintiffððs€counsel€should€beÏdisqualified,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€While€it€has€been€said€that€Canon€9's€admonitionÏthat€lawyers€should€avoid€even€the€apperance€ofÏimpropriety€is€ð ðtoo€slender€a€reed€on€which€to€rest€aÏdisqualification€order,ðð€ò òòòFreeman€v.€Chicago€MusicalÏInstrument€Co.ó óóó,€689€F.2d€715,€725€(7th€Cir.€1982),Ïthere€is€nevertheless€a€legitimate€concern€about€theÏappearance€of€impropriety€here€which€lends€weight€toÏthe€proposition€that€the€merged€Heiskell€firm€shouldÍbe€disqualified.€€The€defendants€were€closely€advisedÏby€lawyers€of€the€firm€of€Heiskell,€Donelson,€Bearman,ÏAdams,€Williams€&€Kirsch.€€After€the€defendants€wereÏsued,€a€law€firm€dominated€by€that€same€firm,€andÏbearing€virtually€the€same€name€„„€Heiskell,€Donelson,ÏBearman,€Adams,€Williams€&€Caldwell€„„€showed€upÏon€the€other€side€of€the€dispute.€€òòFor€all€practicalÏpurposes,€the€lawyers€have€switched€sides.€€Clients€must€feel€freeÏto€share€confidences€with€their€lawyers.€€This€will€not€occur€ifÏwe€permit€lawyers€to€be€todayððs€confidants€and€tomorrowððsÏadversariesóó.€€ò òòòSee€Analytica,€Incorporated€v.€NPDÏResearch,ó óóó€708€F.2d€1263,€1269€(7th€Cir.€1983).€€ÌÌò òòòPenn.€Mut.€Life€Ins.€Coó óóó.,€841€F.€Supp.€at€818.€€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓà àWe€recognize,€as€argued€by€plaintiffs,€that€there€are€diverse€opinions€onÏthe€weight€to€be€given€to€Canon€9€in€disqualification€cases.€€Disqualification€isÏa€drastic€measure,€and€it€is€not€to€be€taken€lightly.€€However,€we€are€notÏunmindful€of€what€has€become€in€some€instances€rather€poor€public€perceptionÏof€lawyers.€€This€could€be€attributed€in€part,€at€least,€to€the€professionððsÏrelaxation€of€many€of€its€rules€of€conduct€that€historically€separated€theÏprofession€from€others.€€Ìà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€lawyers€carefully€planned€their€joinder€„„€aÏcalculated€and€deliberate€act€with€full€knowledge€that€Pierce€possessed€the€mostÏintimate€confidence€of€his€client€concerning€the€case.€€They€argue€that€theÏscreening€procedures€rebut€the€presumption€of€Pierce€sharing€theseÏconfidences.€€The€new€firm€is€small,€and€we€hope€the€firm€has€the€collegialityÍthat€typifies€the€brotherhood€of€the€profession.€€In€such€an€atmosphere,€it€isÏcertainly€conceivable€that€at€best€inadvertent€references€to€the€case€could€cropÏup€from€time€to€time.€€Who€knows€what€effects€such€references€might€have€onÏplaintiffsðð€lawyers€in€perhaps€following€some€lead€that€was€innocently,€perhaps,Ïfostered€by€some€comment€made€without€any€improper€motive.€€Leaving€asideÏthe€possibility€of€divulged€confidences,€we€are€still€faced€with€the€appearance€ofÏimpropriety.€€As€in€the€ò òòòPenn€Mutualó óóó€case,€the€lawyers€in€the€case€before€usÏð ðswitched€sides.ððÌà àWe,€like€the€Court€in€ò òòòCardonaó óóó,€believe€that€Canon€9€is€essential€toÏengender,€protect,€and€preserve€the€trust€and€confidence€of€the€client.€€In€theÏcase€before€us€with€these€peculiar€facts,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€erredÏin€disqualifying€plaintiffsðð€lawyers€from€further€participation€in€the€case.€€TheÏprofession€demands,€and€the€public€deserves,€no€less.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€afffirmed,€and€the€case€isÏremanded€for€such€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÏassessed€against€the€appellants.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,ÌSENIOR€JUDGEÌó óÔ€$ÔÔ€$Ôœ