Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord

John Risjord was an attorney representing multiple clients in lawsuits against Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Firestone) (defendant). Risjord’s clients alleged that Firestone had committed negligent, willful, or intentional acts that violated the law and sought compensatory and exemplary damages. Firestone was insured by Home Insurance Co. (Home), which was a client of Risjord’s law firm. Over the course of litigation, Home had advised Risjord that its insurance policy would not cover compensatory damages for willful or intentional acts or exemplary damages. Firestone filed a motion to disqualify Risjord, arguing that there was a conflict of interest in the case because of his law firm’s relationship with Home. Firestone claimed that this conflict might cause Risjord to attempt to avoid Home incurring any liability, which might increase Firestone’s liability. The district court ordered Risjord to obtain consent from his clients and Home for his continued representation of the clients. Risjord obtained the necessary consent, and the district court denied Firestone’s disqualification motion. Firestone appealed the denial. Though the order denying Firestone’s motion was not a final judgment, Firestone believed the order was a collateral order that was immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. In an earlier case, the court of appeals held that orders denying disqualification motions were immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. After hearing Firestone’s appeal, the court of appeals overruled its prior decision, holding instead that such orders were not immediately appealable. However, because of its prior holding, the court decided to review Firestone’s motion on its merits and affirmed the trial court. Firestone appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.