## Facts

- Henry Kassis and his subrogated insurer sued Teacher’s Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) and others for property damage to Kassis’s Manhattan building allegedly caused by adjacent construction.
- Plaintiffs were represented by Weg & Myers; defendants were represented by Thurm & Heller, a firm of about 26 lawyers.
- While at Weg & Myers, first-year associate Charles Arnold worked on the Kassis matter, including conducting five depositions, serving as sole counsel at two court-ordered mediations, attending a building examination as counsel, and communicating regularly with Kassis.
- Weg & Myers held weekly meetings where associates were exposed to discussions of litigation law and strategy.
- Arnold later left Weg & Myers and joined Thurm & Heller, which immediately instructed him not to work on or discuss the Kassis matter and implemented an internal screen (“Chinese wall”).
- Plaintiffs moved to disqualify Thurm & Heller based on the lateral hire and alleged access to confidential information; the trial court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing the screen and potential prejudice from disqualification.
- The New York Court of Appeals granted further review.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer who worked for one side and then joins opposing counsel in the same litigation is presumed to possess material client confidences.
2. Whether that presumption is imputed to the lawyer’s new firm, requiring firm-wide disqualification.
3. Whether an internal screen in a relatively small firm can prevent disqualification when the lawyer had more than peripheral involvement in the matter.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered Thurm & Heller disqualified from representing TIAA and Cauldwell-Wingate.
- The court held Arnold’s prior participation created a strong presumption that he obtained relevant confidential information.
- The court imputed that presumed knowledge to Arnold’s new firm.
- The court concluded the firm’s screening measures were insufficient on these facts to avoid disqualification.
- The court held that concerns about delay and prejudice did not override the need to protect client confidences and public confidence in the justice system.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer’s duties of loyalty and confidentiality to a former client survive the end of the representation and bar using prior confidential information against that client.
- Disqualification is warranted where (1) the moving party is a former client, (2) the prior and current matters are substantially related, and (3) the clients’ interests are materially adverse; once shown, receipt of relevant confidences is presumed.
- When the representations are the same litigation on opposite sides, the substantial-relationship requirement is readily satisfied and the presumption of shared confidences is at its strongest, particularly where the lawyer’s involvement was appreciable rather than peripheral.
- A lateral lawyer’s presumed confidential knowledge is generally imputed to the new firm; screening is not automatically accepted and may be inadequate where firm size and the lawyer’s prior role create a meaningful risk of information flow and an appearance of impropriety.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals required disqualification of defense counsel after it hired a former plaintiff-side associate who had actively worked on the same case, holding that imputed confidences and the appearance of impropriety outweighed reliance on an internal screen and practical concerns about delay.


Kassis v. Tchr.’s Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 93 N.Y.2d 611 (N.Y. 1999)