X hits on this document

76 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

14 / 22

about Respondents’ claims while he was at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Casey Dep.,

Exhibit E, pp. 12,33-34,40-41 and 71.

38.

Mr, Casey did testify, among other things, that he never worked on the

Arbitration and, since leaving the U.S. Attorney’s office, had not discussed the

,Arbitration with anyone at K&K. He furher testified that the Firm had erected a screen

to keep him isolated from the files and the attorneys working on the Arbitration.

K&K SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RF,PRESENTINGRESPONDENTS IN THE ARBITRATION BECAUSE OF THE MATERIALITYOF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MR. CASEY POSSESSES, THE JNEFFECTIVENESS OF THE K&K SClZEEN AND THE APPEARANCEOF IMPROPRIETY

39.

There is no question Mr. Casey is disqualified from working on the

Arbitration and that he cannot share with other K&K attorneys confidential information

he learned at the U.S. Attorney’s Office that might be relevant to the Arbitration.

Further, Mr. Casey’s disqualification should be imputed to the Firm.

40.

Imputed disqualification of a disqualified lawyer’s law fim is based upon

the presumption that a lawyer shares with other lawyers in his firm confidences he

acquired during prior employment. Disqualification is intended to guard against not just

deliberate sharing of confidential information but also sharing that can occur

inadvertently, simply by reason of proximity.

Because The Confidential InformationMr. Casey Possesses Is Material To The Arbitration, K&K Cannot Avoid DisqualificationBy ScreeningMr, Casey

41.

New York law holds that no screen can be effective where the confidential

information acquired by the disqualified attorney is likely to be significant or material to

the litigation.

11

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 14 of 22

Document info
Document views76
Page views77
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 10:33:48 UTC 2016
Pages22
Paragraphs728
Words5463

Comments