Price v. Price
289 A.D.2d 11, 733 N.Y.S.2d 420, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm must be disqualified from representing a client when a central issue in the litigation requires the firm to attack the adequacy of its own prior representation of that same client in a related matter, as this creates an unavoidable conflict under the advocate-witness rule that is imputed to the entire firm.
Facts:
- A husband and wife entered into a prenuptial agreement prior to their marriage.
- During the negotiation of the agreement, the wife was represented by the law firm of Raoul Lionel Felder, P.C.
- The wife later commenced a divorce action against the husband.
- In conjunction with the divorce, the wife also brought an action to set aside the prenuptial agreement, alleging it was 'manifestly unfair' and the product of 'fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion and misrepresentation.'
- The wife retained the same law firm, Raoul Lionel Felder, P.C., to represent her in the divorce proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff wife filed an action for divorce and a separate action to set aside a prenuptial agreement in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial court), which were then consolidated.
- Defendant husband moved the trial court to disqualify the wife's law firm, Raoul Lionel Felder, P.C.
- The trial court denied the defendant husband's motion to disqualify.
- Defendant husband, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the advocate-witness rule require the disqualification of an entire law firm from representing a wife in a divorce action where a central issue is the validity of a prenuptial agreement that the same firm negotiated on her behalf, thereby forcing the firm to argue against the adequacy of its own prior legal services?
Opinions:
Majority - Rubin, J.
Yes. The advocate-witness rule compels the disqualification of the entire law firm. A firm is prohibited from representing a client in an action where its success depends upon attacking the quality of its own prior work, as this places the firm in an untenable position of arguing its own inadequacy. The central issue in the wife's case is the invalidity of the prenuptial agreement. To succeed, she must overcome the strong legal presumption that her interests were protected because she had legal counsel—the Felder firm—during the negotiations. This forces the Felder firm to argue that its own prior representation was deficient. Such an argument, coming from a member of the firm, would lack credibility and be detrimental to the client. The conflict implicates the reputation and actions of the entire firm, not just the individual attorney who handled the negotiation, thus requiring the disqualification of all lawyers at the firm.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the application of the advocate-witness rule in cases involving challenges to transactional work performed by the litigating firm. It establishes that the rule is not limited to situations where a lawyer will literally take the stand, but extends to circumstances where the firm's own prior conduct and competence are the central factual and legal issue. By imputing the disqualification to the entire firm, the court prevents firms from attempting to circumvent the conflict by assigning a different lawyer to the litigation. This has significant implications for client representation, requiring firms to decline litigation that would force them to question the integrity or competence of their own past services.
