Judge Bove Calls for Disqualification Over Former State Lawyer’s Private-Sector Role
A Third Circuit judge argued that a former Connecticut attorney should be barred from representing plaintiffs in a pharmaceutical price-fixing MDL because he may use confidential government information.
In a recent dissent, Third Circuit Judge Emil Bove urged the court to grant mandamus relief, insisting that a former Connecticut attorney should be disqualified from the multi-district pharmaceutical price-fixing litigation. The lawyer, who left state service in early July 2025 and joined a plaintiffs’ firm days later, had directed an investigation that mirrored the plaintiffs’ case and accessed confidential information from state regulators, the DOJ and the FTC.
Pennsylvania Rule 1.11(c) bars a lawyer from representing adverse private clients when such information could be used against former government parties, and Bove argued the firm failed to screen the attorney accordingly. He criticized the district court’s reliance on the lawyer’s promise not to share the data and highlighted the potential for substantial prejudice in the complex bellwether trial. Bove also warned that allowing the conduct undermines public trust in investigations and could waste judicial resources. The dissent underscores a broader ethical concern about monetizing prior government service.
Why it matters
It highlights how former government lawyers may exploit confidential state investigations for private profit, raising ethical and fairness concerns.
In this story