On July 5, 2018, the Second Department issued a decision in Ballan v. Sirota, 2018 NY Slip Op. 05014, affirming the dismissal of a claim to enforce an attorney fee-sharing agreement, explaining: Judiciary Law § 491 prohibits any person, partnership, or corporation from sharing any fee or compensation charged or received by an attorney-at-law, in… Read more »
Blogs
Posts Categorized: Law Firms and Professional Ethics
Continuous Representation Doctrine Applies Only to Representations Specifically Related to the Malpractice Claim
On April 12, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Davis v. Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op. 02542, affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim as time-barred because the continuous representation doctrine does not apply to representations unrelated to the malpractice claim, explaining: Davis cannot rely on the continuous representation… Read more »
Counsel Disqualified Because of Representation in Prior Related Action
On March 1, 2018, Justice Ash of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Dollinger v. Landa, 2018 NY Slip Op. 30365(U), disqualifying counsel because of a conflict based on a representation in a prior related action, explaining: A party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s counsel based on counsel’s purported prior representation of… Read more »
Court Refuses to Disqualify Counsel Based on Lawyer-Witness Rule
On February 1, 2018, Justice Ash of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Atlantic Yards Plaza LLC v. Talde, 2018 NY Slip Op. 30179(U), refusing to disqualify a lawyer under the lawyer-witness rule, explaining: [D]isqualification of MSF is also unwarranted pursuant to the witness-advocate rule. The witness-advocate rule contained in the Rules… Read more »
Corporation’s Former Counsel Cannot Represent One Shareholder Against Others
On February 7, 2018, the Second Department issued a decision in Deerin v. Ocean Rich Foods, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 00820, holding that counsel should have been disqualified due to a conflict, explaining: A party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s counsel based on counsel’s purported prior representation of that party must establish (1) the… Read more »
Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Former Counsel Based on Conflict Timely Even Though Malpractice Claim Untimely
On December 28, 2017, the First Department issued a decision in Palmeri v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op. 09252, holding that a breach of fiduciary duty claim against former counsel was timely based on a conflict even though the related malpractice claim was untimely, explaining: Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice, in… Read more »
Prior Representation Not Shown to be Substantially Related so as to Justify Attorney Disqualification
On December 21, 2017, the Third Department issued a decision in NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-insurance Trust v. People Care Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op. 08930, holding that a prior representation was not so substantially related to a current dispute in which prior counsel was adverse so as to justify that counsel’s disqualification, explaining: A party… Read more »
Court Denies Motion to Disqualify Counsel Because Prior Representation Was Not Substantially Related to Present One
On November 21, 2017, Justice Sherwood of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Capital One Equip. Fin. Corp. v. Harari, 2017 NY Slip Op. 32460(U), denying a motion to disqualify counsel because their previous representation was not substantially related to the present one, explaining: Defendants ask that the issue of disqualification be… Read more »
Mere Error in Judgment Cannot Be Basis for Malpractice Claim
On November 14, 2017, the First Department issued a decision in Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP v. Telecommunications Systems Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op. 07954, holding that a mere error in judgment cannot be the basis for a legal malpractice claim, explaining: On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff’s filing of a sanctions motion, instead of… Read more »
Representation of Business Owners Not Representation of Business for Conflict Purposes
On October 23, 2017, Justice Bransten of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in MVP Delivery & Logistics, Inc. v. American International Group, 2017 NY Slip Op. 32280(U), holding that a prior representation of a business’s owners was not a representation of the business for conflicts purposes, explaining: A party seeking disqualification… Read more »