Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Claiborne Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Louisiana Generating, L.L.C.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 4, 2020
• Docket: 2020CW1152
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

WASHINGTON - ST. TAMMANY NO. 2020 CW 1152 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

AND CLAIBORNE ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE, INC.

VERSUS

LOUISIANA GENERATING, L. L. C. DECEMBER 4, 2020

In Re: Louisiana Generating, L. L. C., applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 695287.

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT, AND WOLFE, JJ.

STAY DENIED; WRIT DENIED.

MRT

EW

Higginbotham, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. I concur in the denial of the stay and in the denial of the writ application as to the portion of the judgment which denied the motion to disqualify the law firm of Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, LLC and its attorneys. However, I would reverse the portion of the trial court' s November 9, 2020 judgment which

denied the Motion to Revoke Pro Hac Vice Admission and Motion to Disqualify Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs filed by defendant, Louisiana Generating, LLC, as to the law firm of Van Ness Feldman and its attorneys. Rule 1. 9( a) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent

another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person' s interests are materially adverse to the

interests of the former client unless the former client gives

informed consent, confirmed in writing. There is no dispute herein that the law firm of Van Ness Feldman previously had an

attorney- client relationship with defendant. Two matters are

considered " substantially related" when they are so interrelated both in fact and substance that a reasonable person would not be able to dissociate the two. Walker v. State, Dept. of

Transportation and Development, 2001- 2079 ( La. 5/ 14/ 02), 817 So. 2d 57, 60. Evidence was produced herein that the law firm of Van Ness Feldman, in connection with its prior representation of defendant, commented and opined as to certain provisions in the

contract, which is the contract that plaintiffs allege herein was breached by defendant, thereby providing legal advice as to

the same contract. As a result, I find that the pro hac vice

admission of the law firm of Van Ness Feldman and its attorneys

should be revoked and it should be disqualified from representation of the plaintiffs herein.

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT