the appropriate government agency (here the US.Attorney’s Ofice for the Eastern
District of New York) so that the agency can ascertain whether there has been
compliance with the Rule. As described above, there can be no “effective” screen under
New York law where, as here, the disqualified lawyer possesses information that is
material to the pending litigation.
In addition, factors relevant to determining the effectiveness of a screen
include the size of the law firm,whether the disqualified attorney and the attorneys at the
fim working 2n the matter are in the same office and/or same department of the firm,
Y physical proximity of the disqualified lawyer to the attorneys in the office working on the
matter, whether the disqualified attorney otherwise interacts with the attorneys in the
office working on the matter and if so how frequently, and the relative “infomality” of
According to Mr. Casey’s testimony and the Firm’s website, K&K is a law
firm of 32 attorneys allocated among four separate offices -- New York, London,
Washington D.C. and Miami. Counting Mr. Casey, only 16 of the 32 attorneys are
resident full-time in the New York office, including Elizabeth Wolstein, who is assigned
to work on the Arbitration. Id., p. 99.
In addition, two attorneys split their time between New York and another
office, including Michael Kim, who is in New York 50% of the time and also is assigned
to work on the Arbitration. Id., pp. 99-104.
There are many opportunities for Mr. Casey to interact with the other
K&K attorneys working on the Arbitration. All of the attorneys in the Firm handle
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 16 of 22