X hits on this document

102 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 22

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.

51.

Under

such circumstances, the screen as attempted by K&K cannot

possibly be effective.

The Screen Is Not EffectiveBecause It Was Not ImplementedTimely Or Properly

  • 52.

    The screen was also not implemented timely or properly.

  • 53.

    The case law is unanimous that screening instructions should be given

iately upin learning of the’disqualification.

54.

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

55.

Mr.

Casey’s testimony

revealed

that

the

screening instructions

were

transmitted to him in a casual, off-the-cuff fashion.

56.

In

three

brief

conversations

around

the

time

he

commenced

his

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.

57.

An effective screen is not implemented via casual conversations.

14

Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 17 of 22

Document info
Document views102
Page views103
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 04:20:01 UTC 2017
Pages22
Paragraphs728
Words5463

Comments