Park Apartments at Fayetteville, LP v. Plants

545 S.W.3d 755 (2018)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Park Apartments at Fayetteville, LP v. Plants

Arkansas Supreme Court
545 S.W.3d 755 (2018)

KD

Facts

Shilah Plants (plaintiff) sued The Park Apartments at Fayetteville, LP, The Park Apartments at Fayetteville Management Company, LLC, and Lindsey Management Company, Inc. (collectively, Park) (collectively, defendants), alleging that her lease’s liquidated-damages clause was unenforceable. Legal Aid of Arkansas represented Plants. Lindsey Management’s in-house counsel department represented Park. While Plants’s suit was pending, Summer McCoy worked as a Legal Aid attorney for approximately five months. McCoy then quit working for Legal Aid and accepted a position in Lindsey Management’s in-house-counsel department. Plants moved to disqualify Lindsey Management’s entire in-house department. Plants alleged that McCoy had access to Plants’s confidential information while working at Legal Aid and therefore had a conflict of interest. Accordingly, Plants argued that McCoy should be disqualified pursuant to Rule 1.9(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule provided that an attorney who changes firms is barred from knowingly representing a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which the attorney’s prior firm represented the opposing party if the attorney acquired protected information that is material to the matter. Plants further argued that McCoy’s conflict should be imputed to Lindsey Management’s entire in-house-counsel department. Evidence adduced before the trial court established that Legal Aid divided its attorneys into separate divisions. McCoy was assigned to the economic-justice division. The housing division handled Plants’s case. McCoy testified that she never worked on Plants’s case, never accessed Plants’s files, and had no actual knowledge about the case. McCoy further testified that she had never participated in any calls with the housing division generally. The trial court found that McCoy had access to Plants’s files while working at Legal Aid and therefore had a conflict. The trial judge imputed that conflict to Lindsey Management’s in-house-counsel department and granted Plants’s disqualification motion. Park appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)

Dissent (Baker, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership