The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
9
10 MAURICE ANTHONY BROWN,
CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00828-LK-GJL
11 Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
12 DENIAL OF CHANGE IN
JACI MICHAELIS, et al.,
COUNSEL
13
Defendants.
14
15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Denial of Change in Counsel.
16 Dkt. 61. Although the Motion is styled as one to deny change in counsel, Plaintiff is really
17 moving to disqualify defense counsel. He requests that the Office of the Attorney General be
18 precluded from representing Defendants in this suit based on an “inherent conflict of interest.”
19 Id. As for the source of that conflict, Plaintiff states that he has raised many grievances against
20 the Office of the Attorney General, including filing at least one lawsuit.
21 Generally, “‘courts do not disqualify an attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest
22 unless the former client moves for disqualification.’” Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1171
23 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Rogers, 9 F.3d 1025, 1031 (2d Cir. 1993)); see also
24
1 Wilson v. California Dept. of Corr., 2007 WL 173789 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Plaintiff may have been
2 involved in litigation against the Office of the Attorney General; however, he is not a former
3 client of that Office nor of the attorneys he seeks to disqualify. As a result, he lacks standing to
4 move for disqualification. Even if Plaintiff had standing to file his Motion, it contains no more
5 than conclusory statements that a conflict exists and allegations of poor case management against
6 the Office as a whole. This is insufficient to disqualify defense counsel from this case.
7 Accordingly, the Motion (Dkt. 61) is DENIED.
8 Dated this 16th day of January, 2024.
9
A
10
11 Grady J. Leupold
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24