An attorney may be legally disqualified from representing a person or entity—often due to a conflict of interest. Attorney disqualification is a severe remedy, and has the potential to cause immediate harm by depriving a party of its chosen counsel, and disrupting court proceedings. Thus, a party requesting disqualification of an attorney generally has a high burden of proof, and must establish with specificity the basis for disqualification.

To meet this burden, mere allegations of a general conflict of interest, or of unethical conduct or evidence showing a remote possibility of a violation of the state’s disciplinary rules of ethical conduct will not suffice. While the state’s disciplinary rules are often not binding in such matters, courts look to them as guidelines in determining whether an attorney’s conduct requires disqualification.

In Montana, the disqualification of an attorney due to conflicts of interest is considered a serious measure and is not taken lightly by the courts. The party seeking the disqualification of an attorney must demonstrate a significant burden of proof. This means that they must provide specific and convincing evidence that the attorney's representation of a client is compromised due to a conflict of interest. General allegations or suspicions of unethical behavior are not enough to meet this burden. The courts in Montana will refer to the state's disciplinary rules of ethical conduct for guidance when considering disqualification, but these rules are not directly enforceable in such proceedings. Instead, they serve as a framework for the court to assess whether an attorney's behavior is sufficiently problematic to warrant their removal from a case. The goal is to balance the need to maintain ethical standards in the legal profession with the right of a party to choose their own attorney, while also considering the potential disruption to the legal process that disqualification could cause.