In an action by a former client to disqualify its former attorney from representing an adversary in an impending reinsurance arbitration, disqualification was denied because the two matters were “neither the same nor substantially similar.” The court first determined that the dispute was properly before the court, rather than the arbitrators, because the dispute over disqualification of counsel did not arise “out of [the] Contract,” as required by the underlying agreement between the parties. The court then held a “substantial relationship” was lacking between the attorney’s prior representation of the former client and the attorney’s representation of the adversary in the current dispute, despite the fact that both cases involved arbitrations. “General ‘litigation thinking’ – the general strategic plan or hopes of the lawyer and client on how best to pursue or defend claims – does not satisfy, without more, the substantial relationship test.” This includes “predilections” and “prejudices” on the selection of an arbitrator “gained from a small number of prior representations.” Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-03558 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2011).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.