You are here: / / ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS ...

ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiffs’ attorney, Schultz, should be disqualified based upon a conflict of interest. Plaintiffs, in this motorcycle accident case, were initially represented by a law firm (HHK) which had previously represented defendant. Schultz, who was not part of HHK, was acting as “co-counsel” for plaintiffs, working with an HHK partner, at the time HHK was disqualified. After analyzing the facts, the Third Department found that Schultz was not “associated” with HHK within the meaning of the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct:

The Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys who are “associated in a firm” from representing a client when a conflict of interest would preclude any one of them from doing so if he or she were practicing alone … . The Rules of Professional Conduct do not define the phrase “associated in a firm,” but it is well established that its meaning extends beyond partners and associates who are employed by the same firm and includes attorneys with “of counsel” relationships … . However, not every lawyer who has any connection or relationship with a firm is considered to be “associated” with that firm for the purpose of imputing a conflict of interest … . Whether an attorney is considered to be “associated in a firm” … is a factual analysis that turns on whether the attorney’s relationship with the firm is sufficiently “close, regular and personal” … .

“Because disqualification can affect a party’s federal and state constitutional rights to counsel of his or her own choosing, the burden is on the party seeking disqualification to show that it is warranted” … . We are unpersuaded that this “heavy burden” was satisfied here … . Kelly v Paulsen, 2016 NY Slip Op 08920, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FLOOR TO CEILING WOODEN BRACE IN A HOME WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS NATURE OF THE BRACE DID NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​
Notice of Tax Foreclosure Proceeding Deemed Sufficient
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A TYPED NAME ON AN EMAIL MAY SUFFICE AS A SIGNATURE FOR STATUTE OF FRAUD PURPOSES, THE SAME IS NOT TRUE FOR AN ATTACHMENT TO AN EMAIL, WHICH CAN EASILY BE SIGNED BY THE SENDER (THIRD DEPT).
THE LEGISLATURE PROPERLY EMPOWERED THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TO RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH SALARY INCREASES AND THE COMMITTEE DID NOT EXCEED THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD ACCEPTED ONE EXPERT’S OPINION AND REJECTED THE OTHER BASED ON AN ISSUE THE EXPERTS WERE NEVER ASKED ABOUT; DECISION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
JUDGE’S INADEQUATE AND IMPROPER RESPONSE TO JURY QUESTIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED.
Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment Insurance Benefits

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

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL... ORDER WHICH IS NOT ISSUED PURSUANT TO A MOTION ON NOTICE IS NOT APPEALABLE,...