Sanford v. Virginia - 687 F. Supp. 2d 591 (E.D. Va. 2009)

Rule:

Loyalty to a client is also impaired when a lawyer cannot consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client because of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that otherwise would be available to the client. An impermissible conflict may exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in the parties' testimony, incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing party or the fact that there are substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities in question.

Facts:

Sanford was admitted to Medical College of Virginia Main Hospital (MCV) to have surgery for the removal of a kidney on December 20, 2006. At the time, Sanford was 40 years of age, five feet five inches tall, weighed 150 pounds, and was mentally and physically disabled. It was alleged that, on December 22, 2006, two days after his surgery, Sanford was found by his brother in the hall outside his room at which time he was naked, delirious, hallucinating, and clinging to a hand rail for support, trying to hold himself upright without the assistance of the walker. It is alleged that Sanford's delirium and hallucinations were the consequence of toxic levels of certain medications prescribed and administered by the MCV medical defendants. The MCV medical staff was aware of Sanford's condition and had summoned the Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department (VCUPD) to help in restraining him. However, before the VCUPD officers arrived, Sanford's brother, the lead plaintiff in this case, was successful in penetrating the delirium in returning Sanford to his room and getting him into his bed. It was alleged that, on December 23, 2006, other family members found Sanford delirious and hallucinating and concluded that he was not being attended by any physician or nurse because he was on the floor in his hospital room partially disrobed and cleaning up imaginary blood. As a consequence of the events of December 22 and 23, the lead plaintiff requested a psychiatric consult and liaison service, asserting that the justification therefore was that Sanford was not acting as he usually acted and that he was not being cared for in the manner consistent with his disability and his post-operative condition. On December 24, 2006, it was alleged that Sanford became delirious as a consequence of the medications he had been prescribed and administered by the MCV medical defendants. The nursing defendants (except CNO Crosby) summoned the VCUPD officers (except for Colonel Fuller), and the security guard, Lancaster, to the scene. Lancaster and Officer Bailey of the VCUPD responded and allegedly physically seized Sanford, wrestled him to the ground, put his hands behind his back, handcuffed him with him metal handcuffs and held him prone. He was kept in that position by Bailey, aided by Lancaster and the other VCUPD officer defendants, for approximately thirty minutes. During that time, one or more of the nursing defendants injected him with Haldol, a sedative. After he had been laying handcuffed and prone for approximately thirty minutes, the VCUPD officers and the nursing staff turned Sanford over and discovered that he was dead. The plaintiffs filed multiple suits based on infringement of multiple constitutional rights, gross negligence, false imprisonment, and medical malpractice, among others, against MCV medical staff and VCUPD members.. The same lawyer represents all of the VCUPD officer defendants and Colonel Fuller (the "VCUPD defendants"). Another lawyer represents security guard Lancaster and all of the other MCV employees who are either doctors or nurses (the "MCV defendants"). Thus, each lawyer representing each set of defendants has multiple clients. The plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify defense counsel based on conflict of interest.

Issue:

Should the plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify defense counsel be granted?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

There were a number of conflicting testimonies and incompatibility in positions that makes a joint defense inappropriate. For example, on the adequacy of training of VCUPD personnel, there appeared to be a substantial discrepancy in the testimony of the VCUPD officer defendants and an incompatibility in positions that the VCUPD officer defendants occupy vis-a-vis Colonel Fuller. The possibilities for settlement also appeared to be substantially different on the claims and liabilities in question as to Colonel Fuller, on one hand, and the VCUPD officer defendants, on the other. Another key example is with regard to the VCU Medical defendants. On the record, there was a significant incompatibility in position between Dr. Meguid and the other medical professionals on the issue of misdiagnosis. In addition, the existence of the testimony of these other medical experts on behalf of the medical defendants other than Dr. Meguid presents a substantially different possibility for settlement of the claims and liabilities in question. There was also a conflicting position present wherein counsel must defend Dr. Meguid who made a medical note that Haldol should be avoided for Sanford, if possible, but also defend the medical professionals who prescribed and administered the drug because Dr. Meguid did not input the note in their system. Other conflicts include the issue of training, conflict of failure to supervise subordinate vis-à-vis failure to properly communicate findings to superior, and whether the doctor who prescribed Haldol was properly advised of the facts at hand. 

As explained above, the conflicts that are presented here are real conflicts. They exist now and they have existed throughout the course of the case. They have significant impact on the conduct of the trial respecting how best to serve the interests of the individual defendants who are affected by the extant conflicts. Clearly, neither counsel could fully represent all of the defendants whom they undertook to represent.