Lisa Whitnum–Baker v. Court of Probate for the District of Darien–New Canaan (2013)

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION (# 112) AND OBJECTION (# 113)

This case comes to this court on the Motion for Disqualification and the Objection thereto as set forth above.   The plaintiff claims Attorney David E. Hoyle should be disqualified from representing Mr. James J. Baker both individually, and as the attorney who was appointed as the conservator by the Darien Probate Court.   The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on these motions.

Lisa Whitnum–Baker and James J. Baker were married on March 3, 2012 and separated on June 6, 2012.   Attorney Hoyle was appointed on July 27, 2012.   Lisa Whitnum–Baker claims a conflict of interest, yet there is no evidence of that.   She claims the attorney has been a destructive player at the conservation hearing, yet there was no evidence of that.   She claims he was hostile, yet there has been no evidence of that.   She claims that he was not representing the interest of her husband, but there is no evidence of that.   She claims the attorney was very chummy with Mr. Baker, Jr., but there is no evidence of that.   She claims the attorney was bias in his representation, and there is no evidence of that.

In fact, the court finds that the following facts set forth in the Objection, Pleading # 113 have been proven;  Paragraphs One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten and Twelve.

There is further evidence that Attorney Hoyle has been appointed by the Probate Court in approximately thirty matters, which is a high recommendation for him by the Judge.

The standard of disqualification is high as it applies to a lawyer representing someone else.   This is particularly true where the moving party has had no prior legal relationship with the attorney sought to be disqualified.   Most of the cases indicate that where a moving party has had a prior relationship with the attorney, one must more carefully scrutinize the relationship.   In this case, there is no such prior relationship, either as to the moving party or the represented party.

In Mettler v. Mettler, 50 Conn.Sup. 357 at p. 60 and following [43 Conn. L. Rptr. 578], the court discusses the issue of recusal.   The court in Mettler goes on to discuss that in view of the strong public policy favoring a party's right to select its own counsel, the law places the burden of showing that disqualification is required upon the moving party.   The court goes on further to say “[B]efore permitting a party to disqualify an attorney, the moving party bears the burden of proving facts which indicate disqualification is necessary.   The courts should act very carefully before disqualifying an attorney and negating the right of a client to be represented by counsel by choice.”   The court goes on further to say “The disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a harsh sanction, and an extraordinary remedy which should be resorted to sparingly ․”

Accordingly, the Motion for Disqualification # 112 is denied.   The Objection # 113 is sustained.

SO ORDERED.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.