Committee on Legal Ethics v. Frame
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
433 S.E.2d 579 (1993)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Wesley Metheney and Clark Frame (defendant) were partners of the law firm Wilson, Frame & Metheney (WFM). Metheney represented a Mr. Baamonde in a personal-injury action against Markwoods, Inc. (Markwoods). Vickie Lynn McMillen was Markwoods’ vice president, manager, and majority shareholder. McMillen was served in the Baamonde matter and entrusted the matter to Markwoods’ insurer. One year later, McMillen consulted with Frame regarding her divorce, telling Frame that she wanted to protect her interest in Markwoods from her husband. Frame asked McMillen whether WFM was suing Markwoods. McMillen mistakenly thought that the Baamonde matter had concluded. Not understanding the implications of WFM suing Markwoods in one matter and representing McMillen in her divorce, McMillen hired Frame. Months later, an associate brought the possible conflict to the attention of Metheney and Frame. Metheney and Frame discussed the possible conflict and decided that there was none, reasoning that the defendant in the Baamonde matter was Markwoods, not McMillen. Frame and Metheney decided not to talk to McMillen about the potential conflict. Sometime before Baamonde’s matter went to trial, McMillen realized that there was a potential conflict, and counsel for the insurance company filed a motion to disqualify Metheney. The court did not grant the motion, and during trial, Metheney cross-examined McMillen about Markwoods’ business. McMillen filed a complaint with the West Virginia State Bar. Frame argued that there was no direct adversity because the divorce and personal-injury matters were unrelated and there was no actual harm caused to McMillen. The Committee on Legal Ethics (the committee) (plaintiff) argued that there was direct adversity because of McMillen’s relationship with Markwoods.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Neely, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.