Complaint Review: Terrence Oved from Oved & Oved LLP

Law Office of Neil J. Saltzman, New York (Neil J. Saltzman of counsel), for appellant.

Oved & Oved, LLP, New York (Edward C. Wipper of counsel), for respondent.

Richter, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered February 10, 2017, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff to act as counsel in this action seeking to recover legal fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.Defendant's motion was properly denied because "[w]hile the disciplinary rules preclude an attorney from acting as both witness and advocate in the same proceeding, the prohibition does not apply where, as here, the attorney is a litigant" ( Walker & Bailey v. We Try Harder, 123 A.D.2d 256, 257, 506 N.Y.S.2d 163 [1st Dept. 1986] ). The fact that plaintiff is seeking to recover fees under a theory of quantum meruit does not compel a different result. Furthermore, rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ), which seeks to avoid a conflict of interest between an attorney's former and current client on a substantially related matter, does not apply here, where the attorney is acting pro se to recover legal fees (see id. ).

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Jun 21, 2018

75 N.Y.S.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)Copy Citation

75 N.Y.S.3d 417•162 A.D.3d 569•2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 4664

What are they suing people for?? You failed to mention that in this report. Please elaberate