Court Denies Motion To Disqualify Counsel Based On Alleged Concurrent Representation Where The First Representation Was “Effectively Over” Before The Second Commenced

Posted: October 3, 2025 / Written by: Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua Wurtzel / Category Conflict of Interest

Court Denies Motion To Disqualify Counsel Based On Alleged Concurrent Representation Where The First Representation Was “Effectively Over” Before The Second Commenced

On July 9, 2025, Justice Andrew Borrok denied a defendant’s motion to disqualify his prior counsel, Baker & Hostetler LLP, from representing the other side in a case against it. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Harman Connected Services, Inc., Index No. 659609/2024, Baker previously represented Defendant Harman Connected Services in a lawsuit against a third party and had not yet formally received approval to withdraw from that lawsuit at the time it filed a lawsuit on AT&T’s behalf against Harman. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the prior case had been dismissed about eight months before the instant lawsuit had been filed. As a result, the Court concluded that the prior representation was “effectively over” long before.

The Court explained:

Previously, Baker represented Harman in a certain lawsuit captioned as Cellport Systems, Inc. v. Harman International Industries, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00808-SDJ . . . pursuant to an engagement letter (NYSCEF Doc. No. 19). The Cellport Case was dismissed based on a Samsung Settlement Agreement on March 24, 2024 – approximately eight months before this lawsuit was filed and before discovery in the case took place. In fact, according to Harman, the last filing in that case by Baker on behalf of Harman was in May, 2024 – seven months before this lawsuit was filed in December, 2024 and solely in connection with a fee award application; The fee application was submitted from Melissa Smith of Gilliam Smith, LLP together with certain Baker lawyers who are no longer with Baker. Thus, the representation was effectively over long before this lawsuit was filed. It is irrelevant that the formal motion to withdraw was filed and approved in February 2025. No concurrent representation occurred.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently advise clients concerning conflicts of interest and potential disqualification of counsel. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.