You are here: / / PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN ITS...

PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN ITS SUIT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST A FORMER CLIENT; ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE FORMER CLIENT WERE DISQUALIFIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISQUALIFIED ATTORNEYS WOULD PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SUCH THAT DISQUALICATION OF THE ENTIRE FIRM WAS WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff law firm, HoganWillig, could represent itself in a suit seeking payment from defendant volunteer fire company (SFC), a former client. The attorneys who were directly involved in representing the fire company were disqualified from this suit. The defendant argued the testimony of the disqualified attorneys would be prejudicial to HoganWillig, a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3.7[b][1]:

… [W]e agree with HoganWillig that SFC failed to establish that “it is apparent that the testimony [of the disqualified attorneys] may be prejudicial to [HoganWillig]” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.7 [b] [1] … ). “The word ‘apparent’ means that prejudice to the client must be visible, as opposed to merely speculative, conceivable, or imaginable,” i.e., the prejudice “has to be a real possibility, not just a theoretical possibility” … . Consistent therewith, a movant’s “vague and conclusory” assertions are insufficient to establish that an attorney’s testimony may be prejudicial to the client … . * * *

Here, the court erred in failing to “consider such factors as [HoganWillig’s] valued right to choose its own counsel, and the fairness and effect in the particular factual setting of granting disqualification” … . “Disqualification denies a party’s right to representation by the attorney of its choice,” and we conclude under the circumstances of this case that depriving HoganWillig of its right to represent itself in the present action is particularly unwarranted given that counsel and client are one and the same … . As the court properly determined when it first considered the original motion, whether HoganWillig thinks it is desirable, despite the disqualification of three of its attorneys, to continue representing itself is a strategic decision that should be left to HoganWillig. Hoganwillig, PLLC v Swormville Fire Co., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06331, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff law firm should have been allowed to represent itself in a suit to recover attorney’s fees from a former client. The fact that the attorneys directly involved in the former client’s case were disqualified did not require disqualification of the law firm itself. It was the defendant’s burden to demonstrate the testimony of the disqualified attorneys would prejudice the law firm (that was the basis for Supreme Court’s disqualification of the entire firm). The defendant was not able show such prejudice.

 

You might also like
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A DETECTIVE ABOUT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED BY THE JUDGE; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL COUNTS, BUT WAS DEEMED HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
​ THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE KIDNAPPING CONVICTION AND THE INCLUSORY-CONCURRENT-COUNT DOCTRINE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE FORCIBLE TOUCHING CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PAROLE ABSCONDER FOR WHOM THE POLICE HAD AN ARREST WARRANT, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE PROVED THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE PAROLE ABSCONDER WHEN THEY APPROACHED HIM, WHICH JUSTIFIED THE PURSUIT OF THE DEFENDANT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS WHO FIRST APPROACHED DEFENDANT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARREST WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).
SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.
Despite Broad General Language, the Release Applied Solely to the Property-Damage Claim Referenced In It and Not to Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BY LANDLORDS AGAINST POTENTIAL TENANTS BASED UPON SOURCE OF INCOME; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE CONVEYED TO A DEVELOPER WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL; OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS NOT VIOLATED BY POSTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ONLY SEVEN HOURS BEFORE THE TOWN MEETING (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH 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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION STATEMENT CONTAINED... THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY EXCLUSION IN THE NAIL SALON’S INSURANCE POLICY...