You are here: / / Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified...
,

Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified Under Advocate-Witness Rule, However, the Motion to Disqualify the Attorney’s Firm Was Properly Denied

The Second Department noted that an attorney (Wohlman) should have been disqualified under the advocate-witness rule but the motion to disqualify the attorney’s firm and “of counsel” was properly denied. The attorney’s testimony would not be prejudicial to the client:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to disqualify Derek Wolman from representing the defendant in this action, since Wolman’s testimony will be necessary regarding “a significant issue of fact” in the dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.7[a]…). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that Wolman’s testimony is necessary to and will support the defendant’s case does not preclude application of the advocate-witness rule (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.7…).

However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were to disqualify Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, LLP, (hereinafter DHC), Candace C. Carponter, and Candace C. Carponter, P.C., from representing the defendant in this action. Wolman is a member of DHC, and Candace C. Carponter and her P.C. appeared as “of counsel” to DHC. Under rule 3.7(b)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (see 22 NYCRR 1200.0), which are not binding authority and provide guidance only … , “[a] lawyer may not act as an advocate before a tribunal if another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client” (22 NYCRR 1200.0, rule 3.7[b][1]). Here, the plaintiff did not argue that Wolman’s testimony would be prejudicial to the defendant. Rather, the plaintiff argued that Wolman’s testimony would support the defendant’s case. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish any basis for disqualifying DHC, Carponter, or Carponter’s P.C. They can continue to represent the defendant despite the fact that Wolman, their colleague, is a necessary witness … . NY Kids Club 125 5th Ave., LLC v Three Kings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07958, 2nd Dept 11-4-15

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; CUSTODY PETITION MAY BE HEARD JOINTLY WITH A PERMANENCY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS TO THE UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION (USTA) ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S BULLYING OF HER SON AT JUNIOR TOURNAMENTS WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; ANY STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FALSE WERE NOT MOTIVATED BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PROPER VENUE FOR CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS STARTED IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST ACTION WAS STARTED.
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

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

Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment... Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Granted, No Prejudice