CINEMA 5, LIMITED V. CINERAMA, INC.
528 F.2d 1384 (2nd Cir, 1976)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from an order granting D's motion to disqualify
P's counsel.
FACTS: Counsel has been disqualified from further representation of P because a partner
in this New York City law firm is also a partner in a Buffalo firm which is representing D,
Cinerama, Inc. in other litigation of a somewhat similar nature. Fleischmann is a partner in
both the New York firm and the Buffalo firm. In 1972, the Buffalo firm was retained to
represent D in two different lawsuits. This instant action alleges a conspiracy among the Ds
to acquire control of P's corporation through stock acquisitions. The trial judge found that
there was a sufficient enough relationship between the two firms and the two controversies
to inhibit future communications between D and its attorneys and that disqualification was
required to avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment