Retailer Conn Appliances Inc. has asked a federal judge to sanction its former senior legal counsel for representing a plaintiff now suing the company on causes of action similar to those that the in-house attorney defended during her time there.

According to The Woodlands, Texas-based seller of furniture, mattresses, home appliances and consumer electronics, attorney Trista Johnson, the retailer's No. 2 in-house lawyer from December 2016 to February 2018, “willfully ignored her ethical and professional obligations” when she filed Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Texas Debt Collection Act claims against Conn's in May on behalf of a client. That's because, as Conn's in-house counsel, Johnson, the company alleges, handled the exact same consumer claims on a daily basis.

During her 14 months of employment, Conn's legal department consisted of two lawyers—Johnson and the general counsel—and two paralegals.

Specifically, Johnson “often took the lead in establishing, developing, and implementing [the company's] TCPA and TDCA defense and strategies,” including preparation of discovery and discovery responses and negotiating and settling matters, according to Conn's motion to disqualify, and for damages against, Johnson filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

In the filing, Conn's argues that precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit prohibits an attorney from representing a client against a former client party if the subject matter of the present and former representation are substantially related or if the former attorney possessed relevant confidential information in the matter—both of which occurred in this case, the company said.

“As Ms. Johnson is aware, this case is nearly identical to lawsuits in which she represented [Conn's] during her employment as its Senior Legal Counsel. This instant matter will center around the same issues Ms. Johnson handled daily as Senior Legal Counsel—[Conn's] calling practices, telephony equipment, consumer contracts, purchasing procedures, and employee training,” the motion said. “In fact, the only significant difference between this case and Ms. Johnson's prior representations as [Conn's] counsel is the name of the plaintiff suing.”

It continued: “The strategies and practices that were applied during Ms. Johnson's employment with [Conn's] remain in effect today. Thus, Ms. Johnson's knowledge of this confidential information demands that she be disqualified.”

Johnson, now a consumer protection solo practitioner in Conroe, Texas, could not be reached for comment via phone or email Wednesday. In the motion to disqualify, however, Conn's attorney, Michael Harvey of Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr in Houston, said that Johnson, in response to a demand letter from Conn's that she stop representing the plaintiff, said she was “well aware” of her obligations to her former employer and the ethical rules but would not withdraw from the case. When she voluntarily left her role, Johnson expressed displeasure about her time at Conn's and her departure, the motion added.

In addition to disqualification and sanctions, Conn's also seeks an injunction barring Johnson from taking any further similar representation against Conn's.