Grounds to request recusal of opposing (litigating) laywer

Question

Here is my situation, it's a bit of a snafu on both paperwork/ contracts side of things as well entity formation and exactly "who is who" since the project was done as individuals and then slid into a third party company owned by one of the project members. So here is a run down.

State: CA

Situation:

Group 1, of characters A,B,C works on a shared project.

After finishing the project the group selects member A to bring the project to the market for sale.

Member A does not sell the project, but secures a license agreement under Member A's own company with no relationship to members B&C.

In the process of securing the license agreement, member A employs lawyer-D for the license agreement to external third parties.

Member C, requests to review the contracts and is repeatedly denied by member A.

Member C retains Copyright and files, Member A files copy right.

Member C enforces copyright.

Member A issues law suit using Lawyer D to member C.

====================================

My question, is there grounds for the recusal of the lawyer that was previously employed by the project, or the company on the grounds that the lawyer may have privileged information on group members B and C, and that members B, and C was a previous client of the lawyer A, and that Member A should seek independent counsel on the matter?

Or would this just be taken as the project's counselor and so it is proper to continue to use their services as they are familiar with the project.

Any points in the right direction would be helpful.

--Edit 1 Clarifications:

"Was lawyer D ever retained by A, B, and C as a group, or by either B or C individually?"

This is an unknown. It is unclear as to what capacity Lawyer-D was retained, only that Lawyer-D was retained either by A-personally or by the company under A's control. It is also known that in the process of the first dealing that Lawyer-D had specifically interacted with Group Member-B, as well as A.

In summary: In the first engagement, Member-C had no interactions with Lawyer-D.But Lawyer-D was hired by A or A's company, and interacted with B. (As all mentioned in a public document.)

Answer 1

If D represented the group consisting of A, B, and C as a group, or had even represented B or C individually, especially in connection with this same project, then D has a conflict of interest. If so, a letter to D pointing out the conflict and formally objecting to D's further participation would probably induce D to withdraw from the case. If D does not withdraw, a lphone call followed by a letter to whatever authority regulates lawyers in the jurisdiction may gt similar results, and might get D disbarred (that is, D's license to act as a lawyer might be suspended or canceled). In the US this would probably be the state bar association in most states. Such a letter should specify on what occasions and dates D has represented B or C or both, and that a written objection had been made on {date}. It should also specify the current case in which D is representing A who has adverse interests to B and or C.

A similar letter to the clerk of the court where the lawsuit is current could cause the Judge to order D to leave the case.

However, if D does not have any confidential information abut B or C, there is little point to doing all this, even if it is technically allowed. If D never represented B or C or the group, then having represented A in the early stages of the same issue would probably not cause a conflict of interest for D.

Answer 2

is there grounds for the recusal of the lawyer that was previously employed by the project, or the company on the grounds that the lawyer may have privileged information on group members B and C

Yes. Representing partner A in a dispute against B and/or C might constitute a conflict of interest with respect to former client(s). See Rule 1.9 of Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (these rules are quite similar in all or most jurisdictions in the US). The lawyer ought to withdraw from that dispute unless A's adversaries consent to lawyer's representation of A.

To the extent that the lawyer's history with the group enables him to "exploit information relating to the representation to [B's and/or C's] disadvantage" (see Comment to Rule 1.6), the lawyer needs the adversary's[-ies'] informed consent to represent A. Your description suggests that C was not even asked for that consent. That puts the lawyer in violation of these rules, since he should have sought consent prior to engaging in A's litigation against C.

Note that the exploitable information does not necessarily need to have ensued from a prior attorney-client relation between the lawyer and A's adversary(-ies), in which case the lawyer's potential role as witness is likely to compromise his attorney capacity with respect to A in the instant dispute. This could be detrimental to A. If the lawyer failed to inform A about this risk, the omission would worsen the gravity of the lawyer's departure from the Rules.

Lastly, the comment to Rule 1.6 adds that

[w]here the conflict is such as clearly to call in question the fair or efficient administration of justice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question.