DocketNumber: No. 32 81 25
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7268
Judges: GORDON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/31/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Here, the plaintiff has established his prior attorney-client relationship with Mr. Keefe. (See Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Kerr McGee Corp., 58 F.2d 1311 (1978); Liu v. Real Estate Investment Group, Inc.,
There is no question that the matters discussed with Mr. Keefe are substantially related to his representation in this matter. Once a substantial relationship is found between pending litigation and prior representation, it is presumed that the client has revealed privileged information to the attorney. CT Page 7269 Smith v. Whatcott,
The fact that some general information was disclosed to the press does not rebut the presumption that information disclosed to Mr. Keefe was confidential. The plaintiff has sustained his burden of proof in this matter.
The defendant's interest in counsel of his choice demands that there be true risk of tainting the case if his choice is honored. That risk exists here; the motion is granted.
Elaine Gordon, Judge