Citation Numbers: 192 Misc. 2d 153, 744 NYS2d 789, 744 N.Y.S.2d 789, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 774
Filed Date: 6/28/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order dated November 14, 2001 modified to grant respondent’s motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.
“The rules which govern the permissible conduct of lawyers are very clear that an attorney who has represented an individual may not subsequently represent an adverse [party] in the same matter (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-108 [A] [1] [22 NYCRR 1200.27 (a) (1)]). A rebuttable presumption of disqualification arises from such serial adverse representation which applies to the individual attorney and to the entire firm (Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., 93 NY2d 611; Cardinale v Golinello, 43 NY2d 288, 295).” (Alicea v Bencivenga, 270 AD2d 125, 126.) On this record, and considering the appreciable role played by Bianchi as solo counsel for respondent during the pretrial stages of this litigation, petitioner’s counsel did not meet its “heavy” burden of rebutting the presumption of shared confidences and disqualification (Kassis v Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Assn., supra, 93 NY2d at 618-619). Petitioner’s counsel’s attempts to erect a “Chinese wall” in this case, therefore, are “inconsequential” (id.).
Suarez, P.J., Gangel-Jacob and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.