Connection lost
Server error
In Re the Marriage of Perry Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney in a dissolution proceeding, finding that information disclosed by a prospective client was not “significantly harmful” under Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.20.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies Montana’s standard for attorney disqualification based on consultations with prospective clients, emphasizing that disqualification requires receipt of “significantly harmful” information, not merely the exchange of confidential information.
In Re the Marriage of Perry Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Karen Perry (Karen) contacted attorney Gail Goheen in 2008 regarding a potential marital dissolution. Karen alleged she disclosed confidential information about domestic abuse and finances during brief telephone conversations. Goheen ultimately declined representation. Three years later, in 2011, Goheen appeared as counsel for Karen’s husband, Terance Perry (Terance), in their ongoing dissolution proceeding. Karen moved to disqualify Goheen, arguing an implied attorney-client relationship was formed and that Goheen possessed confidential information. Karen claimed psychological harm from Goheen’s representation of Terance. Goheen and her assistant testified that the conversations were brief, no retainer was quoted, and representation was declined due to a conflict policy. Goheen’s office memoranda regarding the calls were submitted. The District Court denied disqualification, finding no attorney-client relationship and that any information disclosed was not significantly harmful to Karen in the matter, especially given subsequent disclosures in the litigation. The court also found Karen’s motion was a delay tactic.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the District Court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify counsel under Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.20 where the prospective client failed to show that the information disclosed to counsel could be significantly harmful to her in the current litigation?
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Karen’s motion Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify counsel under Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.20 where the prospective client failed to show that the information disclosed to counsel could be significantly harmful to her in the current litigation?
Conclusion
This case establishes that under Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.20, disqualification Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
Legal Rule
Under Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.20(c), a lawyer shall not represent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
Legal Analysis
The Montana Supreme Court, interpreting Rule 1.20 (Duties to Prospective Clients) for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magn
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Attorney disqualification for conflict with a prospective client hinges on whether