You are here: / / SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY...
,

SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined a law firm was properly disqualified from representing mother because an associate at the firm had previously represented father in a case involving the same child:

We … address whether, due to the associate’s former attorney-client relationship with the father and current employment with the law firm, the principal is also precluded from representing the mother. While the principal has apparently never represented the father, “where an attorney working in a law firm is disqualified from undertaking a subsequent representation opposing a former client, all the attorneys in that firm are likewise precluded from such representation” … . Application of this rule creates a rebuttable presumption that the law firm should be disqualified … . To that end, “[a] court must examine the circumstances of the particular case and, if it is not clear as a matter of law that disqualification of the entire firm is required, the firm should be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption” … . The presumption may be rebutted by proof that “any information acquired by the disqualified lawyer [i.e., the associate] is unlikely to be significant or material in the [subject] litigation” and by evidence that the law firm screened the associate from receipt and dissemination of information subject to the attorney-client privilege … . * * *

We are mindful here that “[d]oubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification”… , and that “disqualification avoids any suggestion of impropriety and preserves [the client’s] expectation of loyalty” … . Under these facts, we are unpersuaded by the principal’s assertion that a sufficient firewall exists to separate his work on behalf of the mother from the associate so as to screen her from the receipt of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege in this small, informal law office environment. As the principal has not rebutted the presumption that all attorneys in his law firm are disqualified from representing the mother, the father’s motion was properly granted, and Family Court’s order will not be disturbed. Matter of Yeomans v Gaska, 2017 NY Slip Op 05786, 3rd Dept 7-20-17

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT MADE A FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF HER INVOLVEMENT IN AN ONLINE BUSINESS WHILE SHE WAS RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS, SHE WAS FORTHRIGHT ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT WHEN QUESTIONED; PERMANENT DISQUALIFICATION FROM FUTURE BENEFITS WAS NOT WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE AWARD OF BACK PAY TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO FACED DISCIPLINARY ACTION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT WAS ULTIMATELY ACQUITTED AFTER TRIAL; THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).
Math Tutor Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee
RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
NEW TRIAL ORDERED BECAUSE THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE VERDICT SHEET COULD NOT BE REMEDIED AFTER THE JURY WAS DISCHARGED, THE JURY HAD AWARDED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT $1 MILLION IN A SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT STEMMING FROM BULLYING BY OTHER STUDENTS (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM CARRIER OF LAWN CARE WORK WARRANTED RETURN OF BENEFITS PAID, BUT NOT A PERMANENT BAR ON FUTURE BENEFITS.
SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S STORE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SKIN CARE COMPANY AND WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS, LATE NOTICE EXCUSED, CLAIMANT FELL ON THE WAY TO THE RESTROOM (THIRD DEPT).
STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY.

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

ENTIRELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ABUSE... AN AGREEMENT TO PAY COMMISSIONS CAN BE PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR AND THEREFORE IS...