litigation and all of the attorneys in the New York office, including Mr. usey,
.. K i m
and Ms. Wolstein, have offices on the same floor.
such circumstances, the screen as attempted by K&K cannot
possibly be effective.
The Screen Is Not EffectiveBecause It Was Not ImplementedTimely Or Properly
The screen was also not implemented timely or properly.
The case law is unanimous that screening instructions should be given
iately upin learning of the’disqualification.
Not surprisingly, in the case of an attorney joining a new fir,the
instructions should be given prior to the disqualified attorney’s arrival. The instructions,
of C O U ~ S i~ .w d I O he given not just tcr tlxe disqualified attorney but to every ernployec o f
the law^ frmi
transmitted to him in a casual, off-the-cuff fashion.
employment at K&K -- by phone with name partner Michael Kim and Zoe Erlich, the
Firm’s COO, and in-person with name partner Steven Kobre when Mr. Casey had
dropped by the office to pick up his blackberry -- Mr. Casey was instructed and agreed
not to work on any matter that had been the subject of an investigation at the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The Arbitration was not
specifically discussed in any of these conversations. Casey Dep., Exhibit E, pp. 45-57.
An effective screen is not implemented via casual conversations.
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 17 of 22