An attorney who agreed to a fee-sharing agreement with his former firm tried to void the arrangement by claiming that there was a conflict of interest between his former firm and defendant, the Board of Education of the City of Buffalo. Love
The alleged conflict revolved around a member of the firm who also sat on the Board of Education.
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department heard the case and refused to void the contract.
The Court reasoned that the attorney could not make the argument that the agreement should be voided on ethical grounds when the attorney “…freely agreed to be bound by and received the benefit of the same agreement . . . ” and given “there is no indication that the client was in any way deceived or misled.”
The court’s reasoning signals a repudiation of an attempt by a lawyer to use the Rules of Professional Conduct for his own pecuniary benefit. This case also reflects a judicial hesitantancy to issue a ruling that encourages members of the legal profession to interact in an underhanded manner with each other.
To read the full opinion, click here.
