plaintiffs counsel’s “blatant disregard for explicit [court] orders”); Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 195 (6th Cir.1986) (“Although a party who chooses an attorney takes the risk of suffering from the attorney’s incompetence, we do not believe that this record exhibits circumstances in which a client should suffer the ultimate sanction of losing his case without any consideration of the merits because of his attorney’s neglect and inattention.”); L.P. Steuart, Inc. v. Matthews, 329 F.2d 234, 235 (D.C.Cir.1964) (stating that R. 60(b)(6) “is broad enough to permit relief when as in this case personal problems of counsel cause him grossly to neglect a diligent client’s case and mislead the client”); Primbs v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 366, 370 (1984) (<HOLDING>). These courts have concluded that an unknowing
holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability holding that attorneys should be disqualified where the substantial relationship test is met in order to assure that the confidentiality of the attorneyclient relationship and the loyalty between attorney and client are preserved holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney holding that normal attorneyclient relationship does not bar rule 60b relief when the evidence is clear that the attorney and his client were not acting as one holding that there is no right to a meaningful attorneyclient relationship