Kassis v. Teacher's Insurance and Annuity Ass'n
695 N.Y.S.2d 515 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an attorney has had significant personal involvement in a matter while representing one party, and then joins the law firm representing the opposing party in the same matter, the new firm is disqualified, and the implementation of screening measures (a 'Chinese Wall') is insufficient to rebut the presumption of shared confidences.
Facts:
- Weg & Myers represented plaintiff Henry Kassis in a property damage lawsuit against defendants represented by the law firm Thurm & Heller.
- Charles Arnold, an associate at Weg & Myers, actively participated in the Kassis litigation.
- Arnold's involvement included conducting five depositions, attending two mediation sessions as sole counsel, appearing at a building examination, and communicating regularly with Kassis.
- Arnold was also privy to firm-wide discussions about litigation strategy during weekly staff meetings at Weg & Myers.
- In 1997, Arnold left Weg & Myers and was hired by the opposing firm, Thurm & Heller.
- Upon hiring Arnold, Thurm & Heller implemented screening measures, or a 'Chinese Wall,' to prevent him from participating in or discussing the Kassis litigation with anyone at the firm.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs moved in the Supreme Court (trial court) to disqualify defendants' law firm, Thurm & Heller.
- The Supreme Court denied the motion to disqualify.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order, with two justices dissenting.
- The Appellate Division granted plaintiffs leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) and certified a question for its review.
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's implementation of screening measures sufficient to avoid disqualification when it hires an attorney who had an appreciable and substantial role in the same litigation while representing the opposing party?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. Disqualification is required as a matter of law. When an attorney who was significantly involved in a matter switches firms to represent the adversary, a presumption arises that the attorney acquired material client confidences. The burden then shifts to the new firm to rebut this presumption by proving that any information the attorney acquired is unlikely to be significant or material. Here, Arnold's role was extensive, involving depositions, mediations, and client contact, creating an especially heavy burden on Thurm & Heller. The firm's conclusory statements that Arnold acquired no confidences failed to rebut the presumption. Because the presumption of shared material confidences was not rebutted, the erection of a 'Chinese Wall' was inconsequential and could not prevent the firm's disqualification.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and clarifies New York's standard for imputed disqualification, emphasizing that screening measures like a 'Chinese Wall' are not a cure-all for conflicts of interest. The court establishes that the effectiveness of such measures is secondary to the primary inquiry: the significance of the migrating attorney's prior involvement. By holding that a substantial role creates a nearly irrebuttable presumption of shared confidences, the ruling prioritizes the protection of client secrets and the avoidance of apparent impropriety over a law firm's hiring interests and a client's choice of counsel, setting a high bar for firms that hire attorneys from their litigation opponents.
Unlock the full brief for Kassis v. Teacher's Insurance and Annuity Ass'n