Court Case Record ERIC MUISE & another vs. MENNO VERHAVE, MD & others 2012-J-0235

ERIC MUISE & another vs. MENNO VERHAVE, MD & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0235

Case Number2012-J-0235
Case TitleERIC MUISE & another vs. MENNO VERHAVE, MD & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date06/28/2012
Close Date06/28/2012


Eric MuisePlaintiff/Respondent
Ned C. Lofton, EsquireSharon SmithPlaintiff/Respondent
Claudia A. Hunter, EsquireMenno Verhave, MDDefendant/Petitioner
Claudia A. Hunter, EsquireBradley A. Barth, MDDefendant
Claudia A. Hunter, EsquireJacqueline B. Corboy, MDDefendant
Peter C. Knight, Esquire Lisa R. Wichter, Esquire Robert L. Boston, EsquireDwayne E. Greene, MDDefendant
Claudia A. Hunter, EsquireAnne Marie Stack, MDDefendant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
06/28/2012 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments, filed by Menno Verhave, MD.^
06/28/2012 #2 ORDER: The defendant, Menno Verhave, M.D., seeks interlocutory review of the denial of his emergency motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel. A party generally enjoys the right to the counsel of his or her choice, see Mailer v. Mailer, 390 Mass. 371, 373 (1983), and "courts 'should not lightly interrupt the relationship between a lawyer and [a] client.'" Slade v. Ormsby, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 545 (2007), quoting from G.D. Mathews & Sons Corp. v. MSN Corp., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 18, 20 (2002). The burden rests on the party seeking disqualification to establish the need to interfere with the relationship. Where, as here, an opposing party seeks disqualification, we must "be alert that the Canons of Ethics are not brandished for tactical advantage." Serody v. Serody, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 411, 414 (1985). The defendant claims that the plaintiff's lawyer is a percipient witness to an oral settlement agreement. The issue has arisen in the context of a scheduled evidentiary hearing on post-trial motions, rather than in the context of trial. The petition is denied because I do not believe that the record demonstrates that the judge abused her discretion or committed an error of law when she denied the motion to disqualify in this context. Serody, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 415 (on motion to disqualify, "[s]izing up the potential for prejudice in a particular case and the degree of that prejudice involves exercise of discretion by the trial judge"). (Wolohojian, J.) *Notice/Attest/Fahey, J.