Miguel A. Ramirez Diaz, et al., Respondents v. Edward R. Gomez, et al., Appellants
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Attorney conflicts of interest and disqualification in motor-vehicle personal injury litigation
Denied defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, finding no conflict because the plaintiff driver was not at fault for a rear-end collision.
The denial of the motion to disqualify; the Appellate Division reversed and granted disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel.
Once defendants asserted a counterclaim for indemnification/contribution against the plaintiff driver, the driver’s pecuniary interests conflicted with those of the passenger co-plaintiffs; moreover, there was no written confirmation of informed consent to waive the conflict as required by Rule 1.7(b) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) [rule governing concurrent conflicts of interest and requiring informed consent confirmed in writing].
Background
The case arises from a January 28, 2021 rear-end collision in which the plaintiff driver, allegedly stopped at a red light, was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Edward R. Gomez and owned by defendant Canada Dry Bottling Company of New York, L.P. The driver and three passengers sued for personal injuries and were jointly represented by Gambone Law Group. Defendants answered and asserted a counterclaim against the plaintiff driver for common-law indemnification or contribution, alleging the plaintiffs’ injuries were caused, in whole or part, by the driver’s negligence. Defendants then moved to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel due to a conflict of interest.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion to disqualify, reasoning there was no conflict of interest because the plaintiff driver was not at fault in a rear-end accident.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs. The court held that the counterclaim against the plaintiff driver created a conflict between the driver and the passengers, warranting disqualification. The record did not establish a valid waiver under Rule 1.7(b) because there was no written confirmation of informed consent. Gambone Law Group was disqualified from representing any plaintiffs in the action.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that when defendants assert a contribution/indemnification counterclaim against a plaintiff driver, joint representation of that driver and passenger co-plaintiffs creates a concurrent conflict requiring compliance with Rule 1.7(b) (informed consent confirmed in writing). Absent such written consent, disqualification is warranted and may extend to representation of all co-plaintiffs.
In auto-injury cases, counsel cannot jointly represent a driver and passengers once a counterclaim targets the driver, unless each client gives informed consent confirmed in writing under Rule 1.7(b); otherwise, the entire firm risks disqualification.