Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1980–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Keller v. Loews Corp.green2 sentences2024The court correctly found that plaintiff's allegations, along with two affidavits supporting her claim that Bern represented her sufficiently pleaded the requisite elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim" (internal citations omitted).]; Keller v Loews Corp. , 69 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2010]). 2024The court correctly found that plaintiff's allegations, along with two affidavits supporting her claim that Bern represented her sufficiently pleaded the requisite elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim" (internal citations omitted).]; Keller v Loews Corp. , 69 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballongreen2 sentences2024The violation of a disciplinary rule does not, without more, generate a cause of action."]; Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon , 172 AD2d 254, 254 [1st Dept 1991]; Steinowitz v Gambescia , 24 Misc 3d 132[A] , *2 [App Term 2009]), when an attorney discloses a client's confidential information, which was obtained by virtue of the attorney-client relationship, such conduct is sufficient to support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty ( Napoli v New York Post , 175 AD3d 433 , 435 [1st Dept 2019] ["Furthermore, plaintiff's allegations that Marc Bern disclosed confidential informa 2024The violation of a disciplinary rule does not, without more, generate a cause of action."]; Weintraub v Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim, & Ballon , 172 AD2d 254, 254 [1st Dept 1991]; Steinowitz v Gambescia , 24 Misc 3d 132[A] , *2 [App Term 2009]), when an attorney discloses a client's confidential information, which was obtained by virtue of the attorney-client relationship, such conduct is sufficient to support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty ( Napoli v New York Post , 175 AD3d 433 , 435 [1st Dept 2019] ["Furthermore, plaintiff's allegations that Marc Bern disclosed confidential informa | 2 | 2 |
Schwartz v. Olshan Grundman Frome & Rosenzweiggreen2 sentences2024To that end, while the violation of a disciplinary rule, does not, without more, give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary ( Schwartz v Olshan Grundman Frome & Rosenzweig , 302 AD2d 193, 199 [1st Dept 2003] ["The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty. 2024To that end, while the violation of a disciplinary rule, does not, without more, give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary ( Schwartz v Olshan Grundman Frome & Rosenzweig , 302 AD2d 193, 199 [1st Dept 2003] ["The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty. | 2 | 2 |
Cohen v. Kachroogreen1 sentence2016In any event, the violation of a disciplinary rule, without more, is insufficient to support a legal malpractice cause of ac *588 tion (Cohen v Kachroo, 115 AD3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2014]). | 1 | 1 |
AmBase Corp. v. Davis Polk & Wardwellgreen1 sentence2016Since plaintiff cannot prove that she suffered damages that were proximately caused by defendants’ alleged misconduct, her cause of action must be dismissed (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Adler v. 20/20 Companiesgreen2 sentences2015The allegations that the plaintiffs contacted a settling party to protect their attorney’s fees after having been discharged as Landmark’s counsel, while arguably alleging a violation of a disciplinary rule, do not, without more, allege that the plaintiffs’ acts constituted a crime, or an independent tort, or that the plaintiffs acted solely for the purpose of harming Landmark (see Worldcare Intl., Inc. v Kay, 119 AD3d 554, 556-557 [2014]; Adler v 20/20 Cos., 82 AD3d 915, 918 [2011]). 2015The allegations that the plaintiffs contacted a settling party to protect [*2]their attorney's fees after having been discharged as Landmark's counsel, while arguably alleging a violation of a disciplinary rule, do not, without more, allege that the plaintiffs' acts constituted a crime, or an independent tort, or that the plaintiffs acted solely for the purpose of harming Landmark ( see Worldcare Intl., Inc. v Kay, 119 AD3d 554, 556-557 ; Adler v 20/20 Cos., 82 AD3d 915, 918 ). | 1 | 1 |
Worldcare International, Inc. v. Kaygreen2 sentences2015The allegations that the plaintiffs contacted a settling party to protect their attorney’s fees after having been discharged as Landmark’s counsel, while arguably alleging a violation of a disciplinary rule, do not, without more, allege that the plaintiffs’ acts constituted a crime, or an independent tort, or that the plaintiffs acted solely for the purpose of harming Landmark (see Worldcare Intl., Inc. v Kay, 119 AD3d 554, 556-557 [2014]; Adler v 20/20 Cos., 82 AD3d 915, 918 [2011]). 2015The allegations that the plaintiffs contacted a settling party to protect [*2]their attorney's fees after having been discharged as Landmark's counsel, while arguably alleging a violation of a disciplinary rule, do not, without more, allege that the plaintiffs' acts constituted a crime, or an independent tort, or that the plaintiffs acted solely for the purpose of harming Landmark ( see Worldcare Intl., Inc. v Kay, 119 AD3d 554, 556-557 ; Adler v 20/20 Cos., 82 AD3d 915, 918 ). | 1 | 1 |
Goldstein v. Department of Stategreen1 sentence2009Moreover, a fiduciary’s personal interest in a transaction constitutes evidence of self-dealing or breach of fiduciary duty (see Dubbs v Stribling & Assoc., 96 NY2d 337, 340 [2001]; Queens Structure Corp. v Jay Lawrence Assoc., 304 AD2d 736 [2003]; Matter of Goldstein v Department of State, Div. of Licensing Servs., 144 AD2d 463, 464 [1988]). | 1 | 1 |
Dubbs v. Stribling & Associatesgreen1 sentence2009Moreover, a fiduciary’s personal interest in a transaction constitutes evidence of self-dealing or breach of fiduciary duty (see Dubbs v Stribling & Assoc., 96 NY2d 337, 340 [2001]; Queens Structure Corp. v Jay Lawrence Assoc., 304 AD2d 736 [2003]; Matter of Goldstein v Department of State, Div. of Licensing Servs., 144 AD2d 463, 464 [1988]). | 1 | 1 |
Tabner v. Drakegreen1 sentence2009Evidence of a violation of a disciplinary rule is relevant to the question of tort liability (see Tabner v Drake, 9 AD3d 606, 610 [2004]; William Kaufman Org. v Graham & James, 269 AD2d 171, 173 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
William Kaufman Organization, Ltd. v. Graham & James L. L. P.green1 sentence2009Evidence of a violation of a disciplinary rule is relevant to the question of tort liability (see Tabner v Drake, 9 AD3d 606, 610 [2004]; William Kaufman Org. v Graham & James, 269 AD2d 171, 173 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Pappasgreen1 sentence2004Although plaintiffs correctly assert that a violation of a disciplinary rule does not in and of itself amount to actionable negligence on the part of an attorney (see Mills v Pappas, 174 AD2d 780, 782 [1991], appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1121 [1991], cert denied 504 US 971 [1992]), liability can follow where the client can show that he or she suffered actual damage as a result of the conflict (see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003], supra). | 1 | 1 |
Ehlinger v. Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C.green1 sentence2004Although plaintiffs correctly assert that a violation of a disciplinary rule does not in and of itself amount to actionable negligence on the part of an attorney (see Mills v Pappas, 174 AD2d 780, 782 [1991], appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1121 [1991], cert denied 504 US 971 [1992]), liability can follow where the client can show that he or she suffered actual damage as a result of the conflict (see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003], supra). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brainard v. Brown
green
2 sentences2005Assoc., 179 AD2d 177 [1992]; Brainard v Brown, supra). 1998While a violation of a disciplinary rule “does not, in itself, generate a cause of action” (Brainard v Brown, 91 AD2d 287, 289 ; see also, Mergler v Crystal Props. | 2 | 1998–2005 |
Mergler v. Crystal Properties Associates, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2005Assoc., 179 AD2d 177 [1992]; Brainard v Brown, supra). 1998Assocs., 179 AD2d 177, 183 ), a release obtained in violation of a disciplinary rule should not serve to shield a lawyer from liability before the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the document are fully examined. | 2 | 1998–2005 |
Swift v. Ki Young Choe
green
2 sentences2003The violation of a disciplinary rule does not, without more, generate a cause of action (Swift v Ki Young Choe, 242 AD2d 188, 192 ). 2000While a violation of a disciplinary rule does not generate a cause of action, as the IAS Court held, “some of the conduct constituting a violation of a disciplinary rule may also constitute evidence of malpractice.” (Swift v Choe, 242 AD2d 188, 194 .) In the absence of a contract, the mere violation of a disciplinary rule will not sustain a breach of contract action. | 2 | 2000–2003 |
Queens Structure Corp. v. Jay Lawrence Associates, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009Moreover, a fiduciary’s personal interest in a transaction constitutes evidence of self-dealing or breach of fiduciary duty (see Dubbs v Stribling & Assoc., 96 NY2d 337, 340 [2001]; Queens Structure Corp. v Jay Lawrence Assoc., 304 AD2d 736 [2003]; Matter of Goldstein v Department of State, Div. of Licensing Servs., 144 AD2d 463, 464 [1988]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Green
green
1 sentence2004Although plaintiffs correctly assert that a violation of a disciplinary rule does not in and of itself amount to actionable negligence on the part of an attorney (see Mills v Pappas, 174 AD2d 780, 782 [1991], appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1121 [1991], cert denied 504 US 971 [1992]), liability can follow where the client can show that he or she suffered actual damage as a result of the conflict (see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003], supra). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Blass v. Cuomo
neutral
1 sentence2004Although plaintiffs correctly assert that a violation of a disciplinary rule does not in and of itself amount to actionable negligence on the part of an attorney (see Mills v Pappas, 174 AD2d 780, 782 [1991], appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1121 [1991], cert denied 504 US 971 [1992]), liability can follow where the client can show that he or she suffered actual damage as a result of the conflict (see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003], supra). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Reed
green
1 sentence2000(See, Kantor v Bernstein, 225 AD2d 500, 501 .) Here, plaintiffs have properly pleaded a contract claim, alleging that Graham & James submitted invoices for work performed for them in 1998 in the Proskauer/Nomura litigation, including strategy discussions and settlement negotiations with counsel for the Nomura defendants and selection of an expert to testify about the defeasance issues. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sapienza v. New York News, Inc.
green
1 sentence1980Therefore, the better course would have been for the guardian ad litem to have disqualified himself immediately, because “even if the interests of these parties were not adverse, the appearance of representing conflicting interests would be enough to warrant disqualification.” (Sapienza v New York News, 481 F Supp 676, 680 .) Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates withdrawal if it is obvious, or should be obvious, to an attorney that continued employment will result in the violation of a disciplinary rule. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.