Summary
holding that state courts can disqualify counsel in an arbitration
Summary of this case from Orthwestern National Insurance Company v. InscoOpinion
May 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).
In this dispute concerning certain licensing agreements, respondents have sought to disqualify Bidermann Industries' attorneys on grounds that the attorneys ought to be called as witnesses due to their involvement in the underlying events and that the attorneys received confidential information pertaining to respondent Lagerfeld in the course of representing him in a related 1985 transaction. The Supreme Court properly stayed arbitration of the disqualification issue, as such matter is intertwined with overriding public policy considerations (Matter of Aimcee Wholesale Corp. [Tomar Prods.], 21 N.Y.2d 621; Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 630-632). We have held matters of attorney discipline are beyond the jurisdiction of arbitrators (Matter of Erdheim [Selkowe], 51 A.D.2d 705). Issues of attorney disqualification similarly involve interpretation and application of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rules, as well as the potential deprivation of counsel of the client's choosing (Matter of Abrams [John Anonymous], 62 N.Y.2d 183, 196; S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437, 443), and cannot be left to the determination of arbitrators selected by the parties themselves for their expertise in the particular industries engaged in.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.