Expert Witness Work Leads to Conflict of Interest, Imputed Disqualification
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 2 min read
Mar 25, 2010
Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2010 WL 364220 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Brief Summary
A law firm was disqualified on appeal because one of the firm’s partners submitted a declaration as an expert witness on attorney fees for the opposing party at trial.
Complete Summary
An attorney acted as an expert witness on attorney fees for plaintiff at trial. Defendant then sought to retain the attorney’s firm, King & Spalding, for appellate work on the same matter. Plaintiff moved to disqualify the firm based on Georgia’s conflict of interest rule, GRPC 1.7.
Plaintiff argued that its position on appeal would rely in part on the attorney’s expert testimony. Therefore, if the attorney’s firm were representing defendant, it potentially would have to challenge the testimony of one of its own attorneys in order to adequately represent the defendant.
Before applying GRPC 1.7, the court stated that it doubted the attorney, who had testified as an expert witness only on attorney fees, had an attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff. The court nonetheless held that the prospect of the firm needing to challenge its own attorney could materially and adversely affect the firm’s representation of defendant. Even assuming this conflict was waivable, the court disqualified the firm because there had been no showing that defendant had received written information about the material risks, or that defendant was given an opportunity to consult with independent counsel, or that defendant had, in fact, waived the conflict.
Significance of Opinion
Regardless of whether a lawyer serving as an expert witness has established an attorney-client relationship with the party for whom she testifies, the lawyer’s firm has to be cognizant of the real potential for imputed conflicts. This opinion serves as a stark reminder that conflicts of interest can arise when circumstances may compromise the representation for a range of possible reasons, other than multiple client conflicts, and that at a minimum the lawyer or firm would be well advised to obtain informed consent before undertaking the representation.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Press Release
May 20, 2026
Hinshaw Releases America 250 Book Exploring Insurance's Role in Building the United States

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 19, 2026
OCC's Final Escrow-Interest Preemption Rules Bolster the Second Circuit’s Cantero Decision

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
SCOTUS Confirms: Federal Courts Retain Power to Affirm or Vacate an Arbitration Decision

In The News
May 13, 2026
Hinshaw Contributes Chapters to “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” IICLE Handbook

In The News
May 12, 2026
Hinshaw GC Steve Puiszis Discusses Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in an AI Age

Event
May 12-13, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Speaks on the Rapidly Evolving Cannabis Industry

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 11, 2026
Tennessee Reaches Settlement with Mariner in Multistate UDAAP Enforcement Action

Press Release
May 11, 2026
Ali Degan Elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation

Press Release
May 11, 2026
John Weedon Re-Elected to the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Board of Governors in 2026

