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
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims

Employment Law Observer
Aug 10, 2026
As Leaves Fall, Leave Requests Rise: Are You Compliant With Chicago’s Expanded Rules?

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law


