The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court's decision to disqualify attorneys Timothy Hutchinson and Scott Tidwell, along with their law firm RMP LLP, from representing Pinnacle In Home Care, LLC in a dispute with competitor 1 Source Senior Care, LLC. The court issued its opinion on December 4, 2025, in *Pinnacle in Home Care, LLC v. 1 Source Senior Care LLC* (2025 Ark. 193).
Justice Barbara W. Webb wrote the unanimous opinion affirming the Washington County Circuit Court's disqualification order. The case arose from an interlocutory appeal, meaning Pinnacle challenged the disqualification ruling before the underlying case concluded.
The dispute centers on competing home healthcare companies licensed to provide targeted case-management and personal-care services. On August 27, 2021, 1 Source filed its initial complaint against Pinnacle and individual defendants Sarah and Anthony Sanchez, both former 1 Source employees who had joined Pinnacle.
1 Source's complaint alleged multiple violations by the defendants. The company claimed the Sanchezes breached noncompete agreements when they left to work for competitor Pinnacle. Additionally, 1 Source alleged the former employees defamed the company, violated confidentiality agreements, breached their duty of loyalty, and committed conversion of company property.
The lawsuit also included claims of tortious interference with business relationships and unjust enrichment. These allegations suggest 1 Source believed its former employees improperly used confidential information or business relationships to benefit Pinnacle at 1 Source's expense.
Pinnacle challenged the disqualification on two primary grounds. First, the company argued the circuit court erred because Pinnacle's position was not "materially adverse" to its codefendants, the individual Sanchez defendants. This argument relates to legal ethics rules governing conflicts of interest when attorneys represent multiple parties whose interests may diverge.
Second, Pinnacle contended that 1 Source moved to disqualify opposing counsel for tactical purposes rather than legitimate ethical concerns. Such tactical disqualification motions are generally disfavored by courts, as they can be used to gain strategic advantage by forcing opponents to find new representation mid-litigation.
The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected both arguments. The justices found the circuit court properly applied conflict-of-interest standards when determining that representing both Pinnacle and the individual defendants created ethical issues for the RMP LLP attorneys.
Conflict-of-interest rules in legal representation serve to protect clients and maintain the integrity of the legal system. When an attorney represents multiple parties whose interests may conflict, the attorney faces potential divided loyalties that can compromise zealous advocacy for each client.
In employment and noncompete disputes, conflicts commonly arise between corporate defendants and individual employee defendants. The company may seek to distance itself from employee actions, while employees may claim they acted at the company's direction or with its knowledge. These divergent defense strategies can create irreconcilable conflicts.
The court also rejected Pinnacle's argument about tactical motivation. While courts scrutinize disqualification motions for improper tactical purposes, legitimate ethical concerns justify disqualification even if the moving party gains strategic benefit.
This case highlights the complex ethical issues that arise in business litigation involving multiple related defendants. Healthcare industry disputes often involve former employees who join competitors, creating potential conflicts when the same attorneys represent both corporate and individual defendants.
The Arkansas Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction under Rule 1-2(a)(5), which allows the court to hear appeals pertaining to its power to regulate the practice of law. This jurisdiction reflects the court's supervisory authority over attorney conduct and legal ethics.
Disqualification orders significantly impact litigation strategy and costs. Pinnacle must now find new counsel familiar with the case, potentially causing delays and increased expenses. The ruling also serves as a reminder for attorneys to carefully analyze potential conflicts before accepting representation of multiple parties in related matters.
The underlying lawsuit between the healthcare companies continues in Washington County Circuit Court under Judge John Threet. 1 Source's claims against Pinnacle and the Sanchez defendants remain pending, with the case now proceeding with different counsel representing Pinnacle.
This decision reinforces Arkansas courts' commitment to maintaining ethical standards in legal representation, particularly in complex business disputes where multiple parties' interests may diverge. The ruling provides guidance for attorneys handling similar cases involving competing businesses and former employees in the healthcare sector.
The case demonstrates how conflict-of-interest issues can arise unexpectedly in litigation and underscores the importance of thorough ethical analysis before accepting representation in multi-party disputes.