Charles McNutt, Jr. and Lynda McAfee, as administrators of the estate of Charles McNutt, Sr., collectively, the “plaintiffs” filed suit against Jane Benson, seeking to recoup funds Benson allegedly misappropriated from McNutt, Sr. Benson moved to have the plaintiffs’ attorney disqualified, and the trial court denied the motion. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. In her sole enumeration of error on appeal, Benson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to have the plaintiffs’ attorney disqualified. For reasons that follow, we affirm. ” ‘The ultimate determination of whether an attorney should be disqualified from representing a client in a judicial proceeding rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.’ “ 1 Under Georgia law, “a lawyer is required to decline successive representation, i.e., representing a party in a matter adverse to a former client, where the second matter is ‘substantially related’ to the lawyer’s representation of the former client.”2 “Substantially related” connotes that the former case in which the lawyer was involved has both material and logical connections with the pending litigation.3 “The party seeking disqualification bears the burden of establishing the existence of such a substantial relationship.”4
To sustain her burden of establishing the substantial relationship between prior matters and the pending suit, Benson tendered an affidavit in which she attested that the plaintiff’s lawyer, J. C. Maddox, worked in the same law firm as David Smith and that:a David Smith probated her father’s will which resulted in the transfer of land to her and she consulted with Mr. Maddox about this matter.b David Smith represented her in two workers’ compensation cases . . . while a partner/associate with Mr. Maddox.c She consulted with David Smith about criminal matters while he was a partner/associate with Mr. Maddox.d Mr. Maddox has been her family’s attorney for years and she would have retained him for representation in this matter had he not sued her on behalf of the plaintiffs.e David Smith did her will while a partner/associate with Mr. Maddox. Maddox, on the other hand, stated that he had not represented Benson and that he had no knowledge of any work Smith might have done for her.
