Fein v. Chenault

The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal filed by an out-of-state attorney regarding the trial court's restriction of his advocacy based on a finding that he violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as the case remained pending in the trial court.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Florida attorney Frederick J. Fein and his client Continental Tire The Americas, LLC Continental, filed a direct appeal of the trial court’s order in this personal injury case finding that Fein violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct but declining to revoke his pro hac vice status. Instead, the court restricted Fein’s advocacy by designating local counsel as lead counsel for defendant Continental and directing Fein not to prepare or file pleadings, contact the court or its staff, or present argument or evidence at any future court proceeding. The court noted that Fein would be permitted to attend all future proceedings, confer with his client and local counsel, and sit at counsel table during court. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue on direct appeal while the case remains pending in the trial court, we must dismiss the appeal.

The underlying case arose when Marlos Chenault and his wife filed suit against multiple defendants after Chenault was involved in a car wreck, allegedly caused by a defective tire, that resulted in his paralysis. The Chenaults brought product liability and negligence claims against Continental and General Motors Corporation GM. GM is not involved in the issue before this court now. Discovery disputes regarding the disclosure of certain rubber compound formulas and other information Continental Tire deemed to be trade secrets led to a telephone conference with the trial court, which resulted in the court ordering Continental on May 23, 2013, to disclose certain information pursuant to a protective order by June 11, 2013.

Fein v. Chenault

The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal filed by an out-of-state attorney regarding the trial court's restriction of his advocacy based on a finding that he violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as the case remained pending in the trial court.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report