Summary
concluding that attorney-client privilege applied to consultation between individual and attorney even though attorney was not ultimately retained when, among other things, individual had phone conversations with attorney and sent attorney emails related to legal questions, when lawyer responded by saying that he would review matter before meeting with client, and when lawyer and individual met
Summary of this case from In re LevienOpinion
No. 355054/H.
2013-08-28
In the Matter of the Application of Allen M. KAUFMAN, M.D., As Co–Executor of the Estate of v. Ruth Kaufman, Deceased, and Co–Trustee of the Trust Created Under Article Third (B) of the Last will and Testament of Ruth Kaufman, To Revoke the Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship Issued to Kenneth Kaufman, as Co–Executor and Co–Trustee. In the Matter of the Application of Allen M. Kaufman, M.D., As Co–Executor of the Estate of Ruth Kaufman, Deceased, and Co–Trustee of the Trust Created Under Article Third (B) of the Last will and Testament of Ruth Kaufman, To Revoke the Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship Issued to Kenneth Kaufman, as Co–Executor and Co–Trustee. In the Matter of the Application of Allen M. Kaufman, M.D., As Co–Executor of the Estate of Hyman Kaufman, Deceased, To Revoke the Letters Testamentary Issued to Kenneth Kaufman, as Co–Executor.
Based on the foregoing, the court cannot conclude that Farrell Fritz has established that the material acquired by Stafford and Santoro is unlikely to be significant or material in the current litigation. Farrell Fritz is unable to rebut the presumption of disqualification; accordingly the court does not need to discuss the erection of the “Chinese Wall” or an adequate screen. Based on all the facts presented here and because “doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification” (Sperr v. Gordon L. Seaman, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 449, 457 [2d Dept 2001] ), the motion to disqualify Farrell Fritz, P.C., is granted.