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
Ad on Internet, Together With Communications With Florida Medical Group, Did Not Confer Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over the Group in a Malpractice Action Based On Surgery Done in Florida
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WHEEL STOP, WHICH HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS POSITION AT THE TOP OF THE PARKING SPACE, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE DEATH OF THE MORTGAGOR/PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC STAY BECAUSE THE MORTGAGOR/PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE AND THE ACTION COULD CONTINUE AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTEES WITHOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct
Plaintiffs Raised a Question of Fact Whether “SLAPP” Suit Has a Substantial Basis in Fact and Law
THE POINT AT WHICH LEAVE OF COURT AND THE STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES IS REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).
BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT EVIDENCE FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO MADE THE DRUG PURCHASES, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DARDEN HEARING (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