Dillard, Presiding Judge. Frances McQueen filed a lawsuit against Clarence Long (her former legal counsel), alleging Long breached a fiduciary duty when he failed to competently represent her in an earlier medical-malpractice suit. Long answered and moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it failed to include an expert affidavit as required by OCGA § 9119.1. One week later, McQueen moved to disqualify Long’s counsel on the ground that he had also represented her as Long’s co-counsel in the medical-malpractice suit. The trial court granted McQueen’s motion to disqualify Long’s counsel and, shortly thereafter, granted Long’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, McQueen contends the trial court erred by failing to issue a written order dismissing the case, granting the motion to dismiss after disqualifying Long’s counsel, and dismissing her complaint for failure to include an expert affidavit. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s ruling granting the motion to dismiss and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to McQueen,[1] the record shows that, in 2018, McQueen hired Long to represent her in a medical-malpractice action against a nursing home. Specifically, McQueen alleged that professional negligence by employees of the facility resulted in her husband’s death. Long filed the malpractice action in March 2018, but the case was dismissed on October 3, 2019, allegedly on the ground that the complaint failed to include the required expert affidavits. Subsequently, on October 3, 2023, McQueen filed the underlying lawsuit against Long in the State Court of Fulton County, alleging that Long breached a fiduciary duty owed to her when he failed to competently represent her in the medical-malpractice action against the nursing home. On November 3, 2023, Long—who was now represented by the attorney who served as his co-counsel in McQueen’s medical-malpractice action—filed an answer and a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it alleged professional negligence—despite characterizing the claim as one for breach of fiduciary duty—but failed to include an expert affidavit as required by OCGA § 9119.1. One week later, McQueen filed a motion to disqualify Long’s counsel. Specifically, McQueen argued that Long’s current counsel had also represented her when he served as Long’s co-counsel in the medical-malpractice case against the nursing home, and thus had a conflict of interest.[2] Based on our review of the record, Long filed no response to McQueen’s motion; and similarly, McQueen filed no response to Long’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to include an expert affidavit. Nevertheless, nearly two months later (on January 4, 2024), the trial court granted McQueen’s motion to disqualify Long’s counsel by stamping “GRANTED” on the first page of the motion, signing underneath the stamp, and filing it with the clerk. Then, on January 25, 2024, the trial court also granted Long’s motion to dismiss the complaint, again doing so by stamping “GRANTED” on the first page of the motion, signing just above the stamp, and filing it with the clerk. Long did not appeal the disqualification of his counsel, but McQueen’s appeal of the dismissal of her complaint follows. In her second enumeration of error, McQueen contends the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss after disqualifying Long’s counsel. Essentially, McQueen argues that even though the motion to dismiss was filed before her motion to disqualify counsel, once Long’s counsel was disqualified, it was fundamentally unfair for the trial court to reach an issue presented by that counsel. And claiming that no Georgia caselaw addresses this precise issue, McQueen nonetheless asserts the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss amounted to plain error. But this latter assertion is mistaken, as plain-error review is not available for this issue because such review is limited to the sentencing phase of a trial resulting in the death penalty, a trial judge’s expression of opinion in violation of OCGA § 17857, and a jury charge affecting substantial rights of the parties as provided under OCGA § 17858 (b), and, for cases tried after January 1, 2013, with regard to rulings on evidence, a court is allowed to consider plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court.[3] That said, McQueen’s concerns are not entirely unfounded. Although we are not beholden to the federal courts on this issue,[4] we nevertheless find their reasoning persuasive. Significantly, in determining the implications of applying a conflict-of-interest rule nearly identical to the Georgia rule at issue here,[5] those courts have held that a “[trial] court must rule on a motion for disqualification of counsel prior to ruling on a dispositive motion because the success of a disqualification motion has the potential to change the proceedings entirely.”[6] And importantly, the federal courts have further added that, generally speaking, “when counsel is disqualified, a court should not reach the other questions or motions presented to it through the disqualified counsel.”[7] Here, we agree the trial court correctly ruled on the motion to disqualify Long’s counsel before ruling on Long’s motion to dismiss McQueen’s complaint for failure to attach an expert affidavit. But despite disqualifying Long’s counsel, the court then proceeded to rule on the dispositive motion filed by that same disqualified counsel. Even so, given the rather cursory nature of the trial court’s ruling on Long’s motion to dismiss, we are unable to discern if it considered the implications of ruling on a motion filed by disqualified counsel or if circumstances not apparent in the appellate record rendered such considerations unnecessary. For instance, given that Long is represented in this appeal by different counsel, had this counsel been substituted prior to the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss? Or did the trial court believe the disqualification was not a cause for great concern in ruling on a dispositive motion that exclusively relied on pleadings?[8] Answering these questions is, of course, not our remit, as we are “a court of review, not of first view.”[9] As a result, we may remand a case for “further factual findings when the trial court’s order lacks sufficient detail to enable meaningful appellate review.”[10] And this is such a case. So, given that the trial court’s ruling granting Long’s motion to dismiss does not allow us to determine if it considered the implications of such a ruling despite previously disqualifying the counsel who filed it, we vacate and remand for the trial court to address this issue in the first instance.[11] Judgment vacated and case remanded. Brown and Padgett, JJ., concur.
