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 Pennsylvania, the disqualification of an attorney due to conflicts of interest is considered a drastic measure, as it can deprive a litigant of their chosen legal representation and disrupt legal proceedings. To disqualify an attorney, the party requesting the disqualification bears a significant burden of proof. They must demonstrate with specificity why the attorney should be disqualified, rather than relying on vague allegations of conflict or unethical behavior. General accusations or evidence suggesting only a slight chance of a violation of ethical rules are insufficient. While Pennsylvania's Rules of Professional Conduct provide standards for attorney behavior, they are not directly enforceable in disqualification proceedings. However, these rules serve as important guidelines for courts when assessing whether an attorney's actions warrant disqualification. The courts will closely scrutinize the evidence and circumstances to ensure that the call for disqualification is justified and necessary to maintain the integrity of the legal process.