The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) typically supply the substantive law of disqualification for determining, for example, whether a law firm has a conflict. The procedural elements of disqualification, by contrast, are court-made law. A recent case from the federal district court in Seattle illustrated a key procedural aspect of disqualification litigation: standing.
As a general proposition, the party bringing a disqualification motion must be either a current or former client of the targeted law firm and the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that requisite standing.
Shenzhen Yihong Technology Co. Ltd. v. Dbest Products, Inc., 2026 WL 2267436 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2026) (unpublished), is a patent-infringement case. Plaintiff’s counsel had handled earlier cases against the same defendant. During those earlier cases, the defendant’s lawyers had provided discovery to plaintiff’s counsel and negotiated settlements. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, had never represented the defendant. Nonetheless, the defendant moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel—arguing that the knowledge it had gained through its prior work was disqualifying. The court denied the motion.
The court began by finding that the defendant lacked standing to bring the motion because it had never been a client of plaintiff’s counsel. The court then went on to conclude that simply obtaining information about an opponent through either discovery or settlement negotiations did not provide an alternative basis for standing. While the decision doesn’t plow any new analytical ground, it includes a useful survey of the law on standing in disqualification. The decision also serves as a reminder of the important role court-made procedural law plays in disqualification litigation.
Mark Fucile. Mark handles professional responsibility and law firm risk management throughout the Northwest. He has chaired the WSBA Committee on Professional Ethics, is editor-in-chief of the WSBA Legal Ethics Deskbook and teaches legal ethics as an adjunct for the University of Oregon School of Law at its Portland campus. He can be reached at 503-860-2163 andmark@frllp.com.
