Golinello v. Coldwell, Banker & Co., 415 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1979)
An attorney is disqualified from representing a client against a former client where the attorney was previously associated with a firm that represented the former client in a substantially related matter, even if the attorney did not personally work on the matter, and this disqualification extends to the attorney’s current firm, especially when there is no evidence the client specifically sought or desired representation by that specific attorney.
Summary
This case addresses the issue of attorney disqualification due to a conflict of interest. The defendant, Golinello, sought to disqualify the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Schiller and the firm of King & King, because Schiller had previously been associated with a law firm that represented Golinello in a related transaction. The court held that even though Schiller didn’t personally represent Golinello, his association with the firm that did created a conflict of interest, disqualifying him and his firm from representing the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that the appearance of impropriety and the need to protect client confidences justified disqualification, particularly where the client didn’t specifically seek representation by the conflicted attorney.
Facts
Golinello purchased stock in Cross County Sanitation Corp. and was represented by John Somers of Halperin, Somers & Goldstick, P.C. Charles Schiller was an attorney at Halperin, Somers & Goldstick from February 14 to December 29, 1972, during which time the firm continued to represent Golinello. Schiller did not personally render legal services to Golinello. Subsequently, plaintiffs retained King & King to sue Golinello over issues arising from the stock purchase. King & King requested Schiller, who was “of counsel” to them, to handle the litigation. Schiller participated in preparing the complaint. Golinello moved to disqualify Schiller and King & King once he learned of Schiller’s involvement.
Procedural History
The trial court granted Golinello’s motion to disqualify Schiller and King & King. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified a question regarding the disqualification.
Issue(s)
1. Whether an attorney should be disqualified from representing a client against a former client of the attorney’s previous firm, even if the attorney did not personally represent the former client.
2. Whether the disqualification of an attorney should extend to the attorney’s current firm.
3. Whether the disqualification should extend to all defendants in the case, given allegations of conspiracy.
Holding
1. Yes, because the attorney’s prior association with the firm that represented the former client creates a conflict of interest, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. Yes, because under the principle of attribution, the disqualified attorney’s disability extends to the other lawyers in their firm.
3. Yes, because of the allegations of conspiracy and joint participation of the defendants, there is no basis for distinguishing between representation against one defendant versus the others.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the disqualification was necessary to uphold ethical standards and protect client confidences. Even though Schiller did not personally represent Golinello, he was associated with the firm that did, and the current litigation involved matters related to that prior representation. The court emphasized that “[b]oth the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer and client and the proper functioning of the legal system require the preservation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one who has employed or sought to employ him.” The court stated that “the lawyer may not place himself in a position where a conflicting interest may, even inadvertently, affect, or give the appearance of affecting, the obligations of the professional relationship”.
The court found it significant that the plaintiffs did not specifically seek Schiller’s representation; it was at the instance of King & King. This weakened any argument that the client’s interest in retaining a specific attorney should outweigh the conflict of interest. The court also extended the disqualification to King & King, applying the principle of attribution, where one attorney’s conflict is imputed to the entire firm. Finally, the court found no basis for distinguishing between Golinello and the other defendants due to allegations of conspiracy.
The court emphasized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, quoting Rotante v Lawrence Hosp., 46 AD2d 199 and Edelman v Levy, 42 AD2d 758, underscoring the stringent standards of the profession for the protection of clients.