Robert M. Steptoe, Jr., Esq.            Robert J. Schiavoni, Esq.
Rodney L. Bean, Esq.                David M. Hammer, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson                    Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni
Clarksburg, West Virginia            Martinsburg, West Virginia
Attorneys for the Petitioners            Attorneys for the Respondents

The Opinion of the Court was delivered Per Curiam.
JUDGE RECHT, sitting by temporary assignment.
JUSTICE CLECKLEY dissents, in part, and concurs, in part, without reserving
the right to file a separate opinion.

        1.    "In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance." Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979).

        2.     "Rule 1.9(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, precludes an attorney who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter this is materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation." Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, 189 W. Va. 290, 430 S.E.2d 569 (1993).

        3.    "Under Rule 1.9(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, determining whether an attorney's current representation involves a substantially related matter to that of a former client requires an analysis of the facts, circumstances, and legal issues of the two representations." Syllabus Point 3, State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, 189 W. Va. 290, 430 S.E.2d 569 (1993).

        4.    "Once a former client establishes that the attorney is representing another party in a substantially related matter, the former client need not demonstrate that he divulged confidential information to the attorney as this will be presumed." Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, 189 W. Va. 290, 430 S.E.2d 569 (1993).
    

        This petition for a writ of prohibition arises from three lawsuits that are currently pending in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. The plaintiffs in the underlying cases are suing Ogden Newspapers, Inc., a West Virginia corporation, and its subsidiaries.
        Hammer and Schiavoni joined the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson as associates in 1986 and 1988, respectively, working primarily in the areas of labor and employment law. On August 1, 1992, Hammer and Schiavoni left Steptoe & Johnson to form their own law firm, Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni.
        In August 1994, Hammer and Schiavoni filed a complaint against Ogden on behalf of a former employee of Ogden, alleging handicap discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code §§ 5-11-1 to -19 (1996).See footnote 2
        In 1995, Hammer and Schiavoni filed two complaints against Ogden on behalf of three former employees, alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va. Code §§ 21-5-1 to -12 (1987).See footnote 3
        Ogden filed motions to disqualify Hammer and Schiavoni from representing the plaintiffs in each of the three cases. The motions were consolidated for hearing and argued on October 27, 1995.See footnote 4 Judge Wilkes then entered three orders on November 15, 1995, denying the motions.

        We first address whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate in this instance:
         In determining whether to grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory, constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance.
Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle v. Black, 164 W. Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979). Our law is well settled that a party aggrieved by a trial court's decision on a motion to disqualify may properly challenge the trial court's decision by way of a petition for a writ of prohibition. See, e.g., State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, 189 W. Va. 290, 430 S.E.2d 569 (1993) (recognizing that a challenge to a circuit court's ruling on a motion to disqualify is appropriate through an original proceeding brought before this court); State ex rel. DeFrances v. Bedell, 191 W. Va. 513, 446 S.E.2d 906 (1994) (per curiam); State ex rel. Taylor Associates v. Nuzum, 175 W. Va. 19, 330 S.E.2d 677 (1985).
        The reason that a writ of prohibition is available in this Court to review a motion to disqualify a lawyer is manifest. If a party whose lawyer has been disqualified is forced to wait until after the final order to appeal, and then is successful on appeal, a retrial with the party's formerly disqualified counsel would result in a duplication of efforts, thereby imposing undue costs and delay. See State ex rel. DeFrances v. Bedell, 191 W. Va. at 516, 446 S.E.2d at 909.
        Conversely, if a party who is unsuccessful in its motion to disqualify is forced to wait until after the trial to appeal, and then is successful on appeal, not only is that party exposed to undue costs and delay, but by the end of the first trial, the confidential information the party sought to protect may be disclosed to the opposing party or made a part of the record. Even if the opposing party obtained new counsel, irreparable harm would have already been done to the former client. The harm that would be done to the client if it were not allowed to challenge the decision by the exercise of original jurisdiction in this Court through a writ of prohibition would effectively emasculate any other remedy.
        Therefore, Ogden has satisfied the Hinkle standard for our consideration of a discretionary writ of prohibition.See footnote 5 We now turn to our discussion on the disqualification issue.

        Ogden in this case seeks to disqualify the plaintiffs' lawyers under Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.See footnote 6 Specifically, "[o]nce a former client establishes that the attorney is representing another party in a substantially related matter, the former client need not demonstrate that he divulged confidential information to the attorney as this will be presumed." Syllabus Point 4, State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, supra.
        The rationale behind such a prophylactic rule is well grounded: a client, in order to receive the best legal advice, should be allowed to be assured that any private or personal disclosure made to her lawyer will be kept in the strictest confidence. State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, supra (citing Green v. Montgomery County, Alabama, 784 F. Supp. 841, 847 (M.D. Ala. 1992) and Developments in the Law--Conflicts of Interest in the Legal Profession, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1244, 1316 (1981)). A sacred aspect of the legal profession is that a client must be able to depend on their lawyer; that a client may confer with their lawyer with the "absolute assurance that that lawyer's tongue is tied from ever discussing it." Gray v. State, 469 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Miss. 1985) (quoting People v. Gerold, 265 Ill. 448, ___, 107 N.E. 165, 175). Anything less than the strictest safeguarding by the lawyer of a client's confidences would irreparably erode the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship.
        We established guidelines for determining when disqualification is proper under Rule 1.9(a) in State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, supra. In McClanahan, we stated that the starting point for determining whether a conflict of interest exists under Rule 1.9(a) begins with an examination of whether the lawyer's representation of a present client involves the same or substantially related matter to that of a former client. 189 W. Va. at 293, 430 S.E.2d at 572.See footnote 7 In making such a determination, we have adopted--as a majority of courts have--the following approachSee footnote 8:
         Under Rule 1.9(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, determining whether an attorney's current representation involves a substantially related matter to that of a former client requires an analysis of the facts, circumstances, and legal issues of the two representations.
Syllabus Point 3, State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, supra. Therefore, our task is to concentrate on the factual contours of the transactions or matters at issue and to ask whether the lawyers would have or reasonably could have learned confidential information in their work at Steptoe & Johnson for Ogden that would be of significance in their representation of their present clients. See 1 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. & W. William Hodes, The Law of Lawyering, § 1.9:104, 293 (2d ed. 1990 & Supp. 1996) (hereinafter Hazard).
        If a former client establishes that the lawyer is representing a different party in a substantially related matter, it will be presumed that the lawyer received confidential information from the former client, so that the former client need not come forward with confidential information. Syllabus Point 4 of State ex rel McClanahan v. Hamilton, supra states: "Once a former client establishes that the attorney is representing another party in a substantially related matter, the former client need not demonstrate that he divulged confidential information to the attorney as this will be presumed."See footnote 9 This protects the former client from the dilemma of being forced to reveal confidences in order to disqualify a lawyer- -the very confidences the former client is seeking to prevent a former lawyer from divulging or using to the detriment of the former client.See footnote 10
        Here, however, Ogden submitted documentary evidence under confidential seal, thereby providing the court with the opportunity to review the nature of the legal work provided by Hammer and Schiavoni. See Hazard, § 1.9:104, 294.1 n.6. (noting that when the relevance of the alleged confidential information to the new matter cannot necessarily be gleaned from the assertions of the former clients, one way for the trial court to make a better determination is to have the former client reveal such information in camera, as was done in United States Football League v. National Football League, 605 F. Supp. 1448 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). We commend the lawyers and the circuit court for conducting this proceeding on the motion to disqualify in this fashion, providing both the trial court and this Court with a clearer insight into how and why matters may be substantially related and the types of confidential information that may have been disclosed.
        We now apply the law to the facts of this case. The confidential documents under seal reveal, as Ogden asserts,See footnote 11 that while associates at Steptoe & Johnson, Hammer and Schiavoni had the opportunity to provide various legal services for the benefit of Ogden. According to Ogden, the work assignments undertaken by Mr. Hammer for the benefit of Ogden included:
         (1) Legal research regarding bargaining duties, out-of-state law applicable to at-will employment, lifetime job guarantees, NLRA decertification procedures, mandatory rest periods under West Virginia law, restrictions on direct communications with employees represented by a union, and wrongful discharge issues;

         (2) A Freedom of Information Act request to the National Labor Relations Board;

         (3) Drafting a sexual harassment policy and assisting in an out- of-state sexual harassment case; and

         (4) Research regarding the feasibility of applicant weight screening under the handicap discrimination prohibitions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the West Virginia Human Rights Act, and the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Act.
        The work assignments undertaken by Mr. Schiavoni for the benefit of Ogden included, according to Ogden:
         (1) Legal research concerning employer successorship issues, employee early retirement options, age discrimination issues, corporate dissolution issues, veteran's rights issues, and employee health benefits issues;

         (2) Representation in an unemployment compensation case involving the issue of independent contractor status versus employee status;

         (3) Representation in a civil lawsuit on behalf of an Ogden subsidiary to recover lost profits;

         (4) Assistance in regard to a municipal ordinance adversely affecting the use of news racks; and

         (5) Representation in a workers' compensation benefits claim.
        Upon review of the confidential documents and the assertions made by both parties in their briefs, we find that with regard to the two lawsuits brought under the West Virginia Wage and Payment Act, we find nothing in the legal services and representation provided by Hammer and Schiavoni that would constitute a substantial relationship to the matters in these lawsuits, whereby Hammer and Schiavoni could have obtained confidential information that could be used adversely against Ogden. Therefore, we find that the circuit court properly denied Ogden's motions to disqualify Hammer and Schiavoni as the lawyers for Alfred Sine, Darrel Anderson, and Robert Felter in their suits against Ogden.
        However, with respect to the handicap discrimination case, when we examine the documentary evidence, it is problematic that Mr. Hammer, who undertook a research project regarding whether applicant weight screening would violate the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the West Virginia Human Rights Act, and the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Act, now brings a handicap discrimination case under the West Virginia Human Rights Act against Ogden. The nature of the research project, as described in a confidential memorandum, clearly supports the presumption that Mr. Hammer gained some insight into the corporate policies of Ogden and its affiliates--insight that would be substantially relevant to Hammer and Schiavoni's representation of Robin Wilkinson's handicap discrimination case against Ogden. We believe that Hammer and Schiavoni's representation could result in the use of confidential information received while associates at Steptoe & Johnson that could adversely affect Ogden. See State ex rel. McClanahan v. Hamilton, 189 W. Va. at 295, 430 S.E.2d at 574.
        We, therefore, conclude that Ogden has made a sufficient showing that Hammer and Schiavoni are presently representing Robin Wilkinson in a matter substantially related to the work they did for Ogden, and that they did or could have obtained confidential information which could be used adversely against Ogden, so that the Hammer and Schiavoni, in their capacity as lawyers representing Robin Wilkinson, should be disqualified.

        For the foregoing reasons, we find that the defendant Ogden Newspapers, Inc. has sufficiently shown that Hammer and Schiavoni have or reasonably could have learned confidential information while lawyers at Steptoe & Johnson about Ogden that would be of significance in their representation of Robin Wilkinson's handicap discrimination case. With regard to Hammer and Schiavoni's representation of the other plaintiffs in their actions under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, we find Ogden has shown nothing to indicate that its former lawyers are now representing plaintiffs in a matter substantially related to the work they did for Ogden.