The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and remanded for the entry of an order precluding the Munley firm and its attorneys from representing the plaintiff. After he sustained injuries from a collision with a utility pole, the plaintiff retained an attorney from the Munley firm. The attorney filed a writ of summons against PPL. Before joining Munley, the attorney worked for a law firm that represented PPL in defending numerous personal injury lawsuits. PPL filed a motion to disqualify the attorney and the entire Munley firm. The trial court denied the motion, and the Superior Court reversed. The Court began its analysis by nothing that there was no precedential Pennsylvania authority with a controlling analysis for the adequacy of a law firm’s conflict protocol under Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10. However, there were numerous non-precedential Pennsylvania decisions that employed the factors identified in Dworkin v. General Motors Corp., 906 F. Supp. 273 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (“Dworkin factors”). The Court then applied the five Dworkin factors and held that the Munley firm did not meet its burden of establishing compliance with Rule 1.10(b).
