Armstrong v. McAlpin
625 F.2d 433 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an attorney has a conflict of interest due to prior government employment, the attorney's entire firm is not automatically disqualified. Disqualification should be ordered only if the attorney's presence threatens to taint the trial, and an effective screening mechanism can prevent such a taint.
Facts:
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation and lawsuit against Clovis McAlpin and the Capital Growth companies for allegedly looting millions of dollars.
- Theodore Altman, as an Assistant Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, had supervisory responsibility over the Capital Growth investigation and litigation.
- A federal court appointed Michael F. Armstrong as the receiver for the Capital Growth companies, tasked with recovering the misappropriated funds.
- After leaving the SEC, Altman became an associate at the law firm of Gordon Hurwitz Butowsky Baker Weitzen & Shalov (the Gordon firm).
- Due to a conflict with his initial counsel and with limited funds available, Armstrong retained the Gordon firm to represent him in litigation against McAlpin.
- Upon learning of Altman's prior involvement, the Gordon firm implemented a screening procedure to isolate him from the case, prohibiting his participation, access to files, or sharing in remuneration from the case.
- The Gordon firm disclosed the situation to the court and the SEC, and the SEC advised in writing that it had no objection to the representation as long as Altman was effectively screened.
Procedural Posture:
- The court-appointed receiver, Michael Armstrong, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Capital Growth companies against Clovis McAlpin and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Nearly two years into the litigation, defendants McAlpin and Capital Growth filed a motion to disqualify Armstrong's counsel, the Gordon firm.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion to disqualify.
- The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit heard the appeal and issued an opinion reversing the district court, which would have disqualified the Gordon firm.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit then voted to grant an en banc reconsideration of the appeal, vacating the panel's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a law firm required to be disqualified from a representation when an associate of the firm previously had supervisory responsibility over the same matter as a government attorney, if the firm implements an effective screening mechanism to isolate that attorney from the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Feinberg, J.
No. Disqualification of an entire law firm is a drastic measure that should be employed with restraint, focusing primarily on whether an attorney's conduct threatens to 'taint the underlying trial.' The court found no threat of trial taint here for three reasons: (1) there was no risk to the vigor of the firm's representation; (2) the firm was not in a position to use privileged information obtained from the opposing party; and (3) Altman was effectively screened from the case, and the SEC's files had already been provided to the receiver before the Gordon firm's retention. The mere 'appearance of impropriety' is 'too slender a reed on which to rest a disqualification order' when weighed against the significant harm to the client from losing their chosen counsel, especially where the motion causes significant delay and the appearance of impropriety is not clear.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mulligan, J.
No. The opinion concurs with the majority's conclusion that the Gordon firm should not be disqualified. However, it dissents from the majority's decision to overrule prior precedent and make orders denying disqualification non-appealable. The dissent argues that denying an immediate appeal from such an order can cause irreparable harm if a trial is tainted by a conflict of interest, as a new trial after final judgment is an inadequate remedy. It argues that the integrity of the judicial process is harmed and cannot be redeemed by a second trial.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Newman, J.
Yes. The opinion dissents from the majority's conclusion on the merits, arguing that the Gordon firm should have been disqualified. The 'trial taint' standard is too narrow; courts should enforce the Code of Professional Responsibility as written to prevent ethical violations, not just trial taint. Disciplinary Rule 5-105(D) clearly imputes a single lawyer's disqualification to the entire firm. Allowing representation based on a screening mechanism, or 'Chinese Wall,' creates a strong and damaging 'appearance of impropriety' because the public will not believe the screening is effective, undermining confidence in the legal profession and the principle that government lawyers should not be influenced by the hope of future private employment.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly shifted the standard for attorney disqualification in the Second Circuit, moving from a rigid application of ethical rules to a more pragmatic, restrained approach focused on preserving the integrity of the trial process. By establishing the 'trial taint' test, the court made it much more difficult to disqualify an entire firm, particularly in cases involving former government attorneys where effective screening measures are in place. Furthermore, by holding that orders denying disqualification are not immediately appealable, the court aimed to curb the increasing use of disqualification motions as a tactical tool for delaying litigation. This ruling has had a lasting impact on how federal courts balance ethical considerations against the practical realities of litigation and a client's right to counsel of their choice.
Unlock the full brief for Armstrong v. McAlpin