On July 9, 2025, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Harman Connected Servs., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 32617(U), denying a motion to disqualify counsel for failure to show either current representation or prior representation in a related matter, explaining:
A lawyer is precluded from engaging in concurrent representation where the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests, or there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property or other personal interests. An attorney may also be disqualified based on (A)(1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse or (B) that the attorney previously received confidential information substantially related to the present litigation. To demonstrate that the matters are substantially related, a party must establish that the issues in the present litigation are identical to or essentially the same as those in the prior representation or that they received specific, confidential information substantially related to the present litigation. The movant seeking disqualification must identify the specific confidential information imparted to the attorney.
Simply put, Harman fails to meet its burden that disqualification is warranted because (i) Harman fails to establish either a concurrent representation or (ii) any specific confidential information that was imparted to any of the lawyers at Baker which would be implicated in the current lawsuit involving a specifically designed product for the plaintiff, AT&T.
Previously, Baker represented Harman in a certain lawsuit captioned as Cellport Systems, Inc. v. Harman International Industries, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00808-SDJ pursuant to an engagement letter. The Cellport Case was dismissed based on a Samsung Settlement Agreement on March 24, 2024 – approximately eight months before this lawsuit was filed and before discovery in the case took place. . . . .
Harman also fails to meet its burden that disqualification is warranted based on the prior Cellport representation. Initially, the Court notes that, according to Baker, all but one of the Baker lawyers involved in the Cellport Case has left the firm and Baker has created an appropriate ethical wall between the lawyers working on this case and the rest of the firm. More importantly, the matters are not substantially related, and Harman fails to allege any specific confidential information that any lawyers at Baker obtained which would prejudice them in this case. The closest they come in fact is indicating that the Cellport Case involved Spark and that the current case involves Spark. This is insufficient. The current case is based on a specific product designed for AT&T involving Spark and at issue is whether it operates properly. Additionally, the Court notes that Harman does not allege that it ever objected when Baker ultimately filed its formal withdrawal in the Cellport Case indicating that it would be prejudiced by any such withdrawal because Baker would be proceeding in this case in this forum as one would expect. Inasmuch as they undoubtedly filed a written consent (or did not object) such consent would seem to satisfy their right to consent to any adverse representation on a one-off basis as set forth in the engagement letter.
(Internal citations omitted).