Bank Hapoalim B.M. v WestLB AG
2011 NY Slip Op 01586 [82 AD3d 433]
March 3, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Bank Hapoalim B.M. et al., Appellants,
v
WestLB AG et al., Respondents.

[*1] Bruce Green, New York, for appellants.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York (Christopher M. Paparella of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 23, 2010, which granted defendants' motion to disqualify Jordan W. Siev and Reed Smith LLP as counsel for plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a preliminary matter, counsel's conduct in taking on the conflicting representation is governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility, which was in effect at the time of the conduct, rather than by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which were in effect when the motion to disqualify was brought (see Lee v Cintron, 25 Misc 3d 1210[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52023[U], *2 [2009]; see generally Matter of Hays v Ward, 179 AD2d 427, 429 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 754 [1992]).

Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-108 (22 NYCRR 1200.27) prohibits an attorney from "representing interests adverse to a former client on matters substantially related to the prior representation" (Tekni-Plex, Inc. v Meyner & Landis, 89 NY2d 123, 130 [1996]). Although defendants' initial consultation about taking on the defense of the case did not lead to counsel's retention, defendants' description of the matters, coupled with the circumstances surrounding the meeting, gives rise to a reasonable inference that confidences were revealed, which establishes a fiduciary relationship of loyalty with respect to those communications (see Rose Ocko Found. v Liebovitz, 155 AD2d 426, 427 [1989]; Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 49 AD3d 94, 99 [2008]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and RomÁn, JJ.