The plaintiff in a malpractice case sought to disqualify Nall & Miller as defense counsel because Robert Goldstucker had previously represented the plaintiff’s expert witness in a separate malpractice action 20 years prior.  Patrick Arndt argued that the prior representation posed no conflict of interest with respect to the plaintiff’s expert because Goldstucker was bound not to reveal any information learned from that expert as a result of his ancient past representation of him.  Arndt also argued that defendants should be permitted to move forward with counsel of their choice.  The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Goldstucker and Nall & Miller.  Shortly after Arndt’s oral argument, on January 27, 2017, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling, adopting the reasoning set forth in Arndt’s brief.

(Pictured left to right: Bob Goldstucker, Patrick Arndt)