You are here: / / Potential Conflict of Interest Arising from Representation of Co-Guardians...
,

Potential Conflict of Interest Arising from Representation of Co-Guardians Required that the Co-Guardians Each Have Their Own Counsel

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a single attorney representing co-guardians of an incapacitated person created the appearance of representing conflicting interests. The court held there was a potential conflict of interest because the co-guardians were dependent upon the incapacitated person and had competing financial interests in the terms of a trust and as beneficiaries of the incapacitated person’s will:

It is well settled that an attorney “must avoid not only the fact, but even the appearance, of representing conflicting interests” … . “[W]ith rare and conditional exceptions, the lawyer may not place himself in a position where a conflicting interest may, even inadvertently, affect, or give the appearance of affecting, the obligations of the professional relationship” … . Moreover, “doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification” … . Full disclosure and prior consent by the parties may, on occasion, obviate the objection to conflicting representation … .

Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we find that the motion court properly determined that joint representation of the co-guardians by a single counsel would be improper. While an actual conflict may not have arisen “at this time” and in this proceeding as the dissent posits, there is clearly a potential conflict of interest … . Matter of Strasser v Asher, 2015 NY Slip Op 04763, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

You might also like
Abstention from Alcohol While Incarcerated and Exemplary Prison Record Did Not Warrant Downward Departure Re: Sex Offender Status/Basics of Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Proceedings Explained In Some Depth
JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).
Including “Statute of Limitations” in a Catch-All Paragraph Listing Many Affirmative Defenses Did Not Provide Plaintiff with Sufficient Notice—At a Bare Minimum, the Duration of the Relevant Statute of Limitations, Six Years Here, Should Be Pled
WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).
DeBour Criteria Met in Street Encounter Leading to Arrest; Statements Tainted by Miranda Violations Did Not Preclude Admission of Statement Made Seven Hours Later
Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column, Not Gravity-Related—Not Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Termination of Teacher’s Probationary Employment and Teaching Licenses... Hearsay Statement Did Not Meet the “Reliability” Requirement for...