Opinion
95 Civ. 9529 (JSM), 95 Civ. 9529, 96 Civ. 0103, 98 Civ. 6083)
July, 2000
Kathleen M. Balderston, Thelen Reid Priest, New York, NY, for plaintiff.
Robert S. Royer, Washington, DC; Howard Karasik, Sherman, Citron Karasik, New York, NY; Jonathon M. Hoff, Cadwalader Wickersham Taft, New York, NY; Marshall R. King, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, New York, NY; Richard DePalma, Coudert Brothers, New York, NY; John Hartman, Levene Goulding Thompson, Binghampton, NY; Andrew S. Fisher, Fisher, Fisher Berger, New York, NY; Karen Lederer, Parker Chapin Flattau Klimpl, New York, NY; Jamie M. Brickell, Pryor, Cashman, Sherman Flynn, New York, NY; Arthur M. Handler, Burns Handler Burns, New York, NY; Eliot Robinson, New York, NY; Paul C. Kurland, Snow Becker Kraus, New York, NY; Arnold J. Ross, New York, NY; Pinchus Raice, Raice Paykin Krieg Schrader, New York, NY; Mel Barkan, Brauner Baron Rosenzweig Klein, New York, NY; Bryan W. Kishner, Law Offices of Bryan W. Kishner, New York, NY; Peter Bongiorno, Bongiorno Bongiorno LLP, Garden City, NY; Sam Oolie, Oolie Enterprises, Upper Saddle River, N.J.; Martin Simon, The Punchbowl, Roscoe, NY, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Certain of the defendants move to disqualify the law firm Thelen Reid Priest from representing the plaintiff in this action. The motions to disqualify are denied.
The motions to disqualify are premised on the fact that two lawyers who closed some of the loans at issue while partners in the firm of Golenbock and Barell subsequently became partners at Thelen Reid Priest. However, one of those lawyers has now left Thelen Reid Priest. The other has almost no recollection of the loan in question, and it is ludicrous to suggest that any competent attorney would seriously consider calling him to testify at a trial. The movants suggest that the attorney's testimony would be relevant because he closed a loan that is alleged to have been improper because it involved an insider, but the attorney in question has testified: "I mean, the issue of insider would be at the time the loan was approved. We didn't get involved until the loan had been approved and sent to us."
The movants totally fail to meet the "high standard of proof" necessary to justify disqualification. Sumitomo Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Co., No. 99 Civ. 8780, 2000 WL 145747 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2000). Therefore, the motions to disqualify are denied.
SO ORDERED.