On March 5, 2026, Justice Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Reich v. Purslane, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 30803(U), scheduling a hearing to resolve factual questions regarding the disqualification of counsel because of a conflict, explaining:
It has been held that, the disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the court. Although a party’s entitlement to counsel of its choice is a valued right, that right will not supersede a clear showing that disqualification is warranted. In these circumstances, the moving party must establish: 1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel; 2) that the matters involved are both substantially related and 3) that the interest of the present client and the former client are adverse.
Furthermore pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, unless certain exceptions apply, a lawyer shall not act as an advocate before a tribunal in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact.
Here, Defendants’ counsel indicates that he has had contact with the Plaintiff only in the context of drafting an Operating Agreement for Purslane, LLC, and no other involvement or sharing of any confidential information. Further, although Plaintiff alleges counsel is likely to be called as a witness, it is not apparent whether or not such action is strategic, since the attorney completed drafts, but his fom1er firm completed the final version, and the terms of the Operating Agreement do not appear to be in dispute. Additionally, the timing of the motion, MS 7, is a consideration. Accordingly a hearing shall be conducted for the purpose of determining whether Defendant’s counsel is to be disqualified on March 26, 2026, at 11 :30 a.m.
(Internal citations omitted).