NANCY ULLMANN-SCHNEIDER plf-res, v. LACHER & LOVELLTAYLOR PC def-ap

10721N. NANCY ULLMANN-SCHNEIDER plf-res, v. LACHER & LOVELLTAYLOR PC def-ap — Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains (Robert D. Meade of counsel), for ap — Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, New York (Jeffrey T. Golenbock of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered December 11, 2012, which denied defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiffs' attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10721N. NANCY ULLMANN-SCHNEIDER plf-res, v. LACHER & LOVELLTAYLOR PC def-ap — Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains (Robert D. Meade of counsel), for ap — Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, New York (Jeffrey T. Golenbock of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered December 11, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“Disqualification… during litigation implicates not only the ethics of the profession but also the substantive rights of the litigants [and] denies a party’s right to representation by the attorney of its choice” (S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 69 NY2d 437, 443 [1987]).The right to counsel is “a valued right [and] any restrictions must be carefully scrutinized” (id.). Furthermore, where the rules relating to professional conduct are invoked not at a disciplinary proceeding but “in the context of an ongoing lawsuit, disqualification… can [create a] strategic advantage of one party over another” (id.). Thus, the movant must meet a heavy burden of showing that disqualification is warranted (see Broadwhite Assoc. v. Truong, 237 AD2d 162, 163 [1st Dept 1997]). Disqualification is required only where the testimony by the attorney is considered necessary and prejudicial to plaintiffs’ interests (see id.). Defendants have not met their burden.

NANCY ULLMANN-SCHNEIDER plf-res, v. LACHER & LOVELLTAYLOR PC def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal