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.
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
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.
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
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
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 14 of 22