## Facts

- A Celanese employee filed a Title VII sex-discrimination action against Celanese, including class allegations.
- Celanese’s in-house attorney, Donata A. Delulio, had worked on Celanese’s defense in that same action, including reviewing internal employment data, coordinating with defense experts, and preparing defense memoranda.
- Plaintiff’s counsel sought leave to add several intervening plaintiffs, including Delulio, who alleged she too had suffered sex discrimination by Celanese.
- Delulio proposed to join the case as a plaintiff represented by the same firm representing the original plaintiff.
- Celanese opposed Delulio’s intervention and moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, arguing that Delulio’s prior defense role created a serious risk that Celanese’s confidential information and litigation strategy could be used against it.

## Issues

1. Whether a corporate in-house attorney who participated in defending an ongoing case may intervene as a plaintiff against the corporation in the same litigation.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s law firm must be disqualified when it represents (or seeks to represent) the opposing party’s former in-house defense attorney in the same case, creating a risk of disclosure or use of confidential information.
3. How to weigh the plaintiff’s choice of counsel against the opposing party’s confidentiality interests and the public interest in the fair administration of justice.

## Decision

- The court denied Delulio’s motion to intervene as a plaintiff.
- The court granted Celanese’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm.
- The court concluded that Delulio’s prior active role in defending the same action created an ongoing risk of disclosure, including inadvertent disclosure, of Celanese’s confidential information.
- The court determined that protecting confidentiality and the integrity of the proceedings outweighed the plaintiff’s interest in continuing with chosen counsel under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney who has participated in a client’s defense in a matter may be barred from switching sides in the same litigation when the attorney’s prior work creates a serious risk that confidential information could be disclosed or used against the former client.
- Disqualification may be ordered where counsel’s representation creates an ever-present opportunity for inadvertent disclosure of an opposing party’s confidential information, even without proof of actual misuse.
- In deciding disqualification, courts balance (1) the affected party’s interest in counsel of choice, (2) the opposing party’s right to a proceeding free from the risk of improper disclosure of confidences, and (3) the public interest in the scrupulous administration of justice.

## Conclusion

The court denied intervention by a corporate in-house lawyer who had worked on the defendant’s defense in the same Title VII case and disqualified the plaintiff’s counsel, reasoning that the conflict created a serious risk of disclosing or using the defendant’s confidential information and that safeguarding confidentiality and public confidence in the fairness of the process outweighed the plaintiff’s preference for particular counsel.


Hull v. Celanese Corp., 375 F. Supp. 922 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)