Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAppellate JurisdictionFinal Judgment RuleCollateral Order Doctrine28 U.S.C. § 1291final decisioncollateral orderinterlocutory appeal

Facts

In a civil products-liability suit over alleged birth defects caused by Bendectin, the District Court became concerned about misconduct by plaintiff's counsel during pretrial proceedings. The court found that one attorney had tried to obtain a statement from a secretary without regard for the truth in order to thwart an investigation, and that another had released excluded information to the press in a way calculated to prejudice the defendant's case and circumvent prior evidentiary rulings. Based on those findings, the District Court revoked the pro hac vice admissions of the two attorneys and the appearance of their law firm. The plaintiff immediately appealed, and the Court of Appeals stayed district court proceedings and entertained the appeal under § 1291.

Issue

Whether a district court order disqualifying counsel in a civil case is an immediately appealable collateral order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Put differently, does such a disqualification order qualify as a 'final decision' under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule?

Rule

Orders disqualifying counsel in civil cases are not collateral orders subject to immediate appeal as 'final decisions' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. To fall within the collateral order doctrine, an order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment; civil disqualification orders, as a class, do not satisfy those requirements.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal products-liability action in Denver, Maya Ortiz sues Front Range Surgical Devices. The district judge disqualifies Maya's lead trial lawyer for alleged violations of a local professional-conduct rule and orders the case to proceed with substitute counsel.

Maya files an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, arguing that the disqualification conclusively resolved the issue and deprived her of her chosen attorney. How should the court of appeals rule?

Explanation. The appeal should be dismissed. The majority held that orders disqualifying counsel in civil cases, as a class, are not collateral orders appealable under § 1291. Although such orders may conclusively determine the immediate dispute, they do not satisfy the narrow collateral order doctrine because they are not sufficiently separate from the merits and are not effectively unreviewable after final judgment.