The federal district court in Seattle recently highlighted a key procedural requirement for most disqualification motions based on asserted former client conflicts: The party bringing the motion must show that they were, in fact, a former client of the lawyer or law firm targeted.
Thompson v. Seattle Public Schools, 2025 WL 2654650 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 8, 2025) (unpublished), involved employment discrimination claims against the defendant school district. The lead lawyer for the school district had earlier investigated employment claims by the plaintiff against another local school district. The plaintiff argued that the lawyer’s earlier investigation constituted a former client conflict under RPC 1.9 that warranted disqualification.
The court noted that regardless of whether the two matters shared any common facts, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a disqualification motion against the lawyer because the plaintiff had never been a client of the lawyer. The court reasoned that RPC 1.9 on its face is predicated on the fact that the lawyer or law firm involved had formerly represented the client. Disqualification motions for conflicts, in turn, are ordinarily reserved solely for current or former clients of the law firm involved—usually framed under the procedural requirement of “standing.” Lacking that here, the court denied the motion. The court also later denied reconsideration at 2025 WL 2653675 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 16, 2025) (unpublished).
Although Thompson is an “unpublished” decision, the federal court in Seattle discussed standing in the disqualification context for conflicts generally in the relatively recent reported decision of United States Fire Insurance Company v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 523 F. Supp.3d 1262 (W.D. Wash. 2021).
