Surrogate Nelida Malave-Gonzalez
Cross-petitioner John Olmo's attorney, Coyle, moved to disqualify petitioner Robert Olmo's attorney, Zak, among other things, in this contested administration action. Robert petitioned for letters of administration in his father's estate, while John cross-petitioned for same. Coyle spoke with attorney Lippman, a friend of nearly 25 years, to discuss the case and strategy with him, noting Lippman never advised her he was involved in the matter. She later discovered Lippman was acting as of counsel to Zak, and noted neither Zak, nor Lippman ever denied discussing the case together. The court stated after conferring with Coyle, and becoming aware before the end of the consultation that Zak was representing Coyle's adversaries in this case, Lippman had a duty not to act as of counsel or legal advisor to Zak in the matter. It found Lippman was privy to Coyle's confidences regarding her client, and also of Zak's confidences and his clients'. Thus, as Zak failed to rebut the presumption of imputed disqualification by proving any information acquired by Lippman would not be material in the instant litigation, Zak's disqualification was necessary to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
