Panel Clarifies 'Harm' Needed to Disqualify an Attorney
The First Department held that even though the attorney whose disqualification was sought had imparted confidential information gained from a prospective client that was "likely to be detrimental" to the client, "disqualification is not warranted because the conveyed information did not have the potential to be significantly harmful."
January 09, 2015 at 04:57 AM
3 minute read
Interpreting what defines “substantial harm” to a prospective client when determining if an attorney should be disqualified, a unanimous appellate panel reversed a Commercial Division ruling that disqualified an attorney based on Rule 1.18, which was added to the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) in 2009.
In a nine-page opinion by Justice David Saxe (See Profile) of the Appellate Division, First Department, the court held that even though the attorney in question had imparted confidential information gained from a prospective client that was “likely to be detrimental” to the client, “disqualification is not warranted because the conveyed information did not have the potential to be significantly harmful.”
Ruling in Mayers v. Stone Castle Partners, 650410/2013, Saxe said the prospective client who sought the disqualification had later made the confidential information known to his adversary, and thus the disclosure did not reach the level of “significant harm” required by the rule.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Standing for Plaintiffs in Copyright Suit Over AI Training of ChatGPT
Decision of the Day: Judge Explains Ruling to Partially Sequester, Grant Anonymity to Jurors in MS-13 Murder Case
Trending Stories
- 1Mattel Sued Over 'Wicked' Dolls With Pornographic Website
- 2Brown Rudnick’s Brand and Reputation Group Unfazed After Loss of 6 Prominent Partners and Their Big-Name Clients
- 3Fulton Judge Weighs Whether to Order Fani Willis to Comply With Lawmakers' Subpoenas Over Trump Case
- 4Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
- 5Judge Rises to Tifton Superior Court Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
