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
GRAND-JUROR BIAS ISSUE IS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; ERRONEOUS ADVICE RE APPEALABILITY OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED REMITTAL TO GIVE DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DRIVER’S LICENSES. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE STATES THAT EMPIRE ZONE REAL PROPERTY TAX CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WHEN THE TAX PAYER MAKES DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDITS EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM A MORTGAGE TAX ESCROW ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).
Procedure for Modification of SORA Level.
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Was an Employee Notwithstanding a Written Agreement Describing Her as an Independent Contractor
Custody Petition by Maternal Grandmother Denied in Favor of Child’s Mother
EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000).

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 © 2025 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,...