continue to represent Respondents in the Arbitration.
Additionally, the timing of Respondents’ decision to proceed with the
Arbitration --just six days after Mr. Casey joined the Firm and after Respondents kept it
“on hold” for a year - in and of itself creates the appearance of impropriety.
Petitioners are not aware of any evidence Mr. Casey actually shared
confidential information with any of his colleagues at K&K and this application is not
attorney’s sharing of confidential information would immediately result in his and his
irm’s disqualification, the absence of any such evidence is of little consequence in a
court’s analysis of a disqualification motion. Indeed, in virtually every case where an
attorney’s cliscluiilifiCcitic)ll 1s inipirtcd to his law lirin, thert: is 170 cvidence of any actual
sharing of confidential information and in many cases the court notes that the decision tu
grant disqualificationis not a comment on the integrity of the disqualified attorney.
MANDEL MUST ALSO BE DISOUALIFIED
As Mandel has been working on this matter as co-counsel with K&K since
at least November 2009, during which time no effective screen has been in place at K&K,
Mandel must be disqualified for all the same reasons K&K must be disqualified.
Mandel has been intimately involved with the Arbitration since soon after
Respondents advised FINRA they had decided to proceed with the Arbitration against the
individual Petitioners, including being on all conference calls. It is certainly fair to
%surne Mandel has acquired all of the infoqnation about the Arbitration K&K has.
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 19 of 22