TENNEY, District Judge.
This Court today hears the appeal from an order of disqualification of plaintiff's counsel, the law firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard ("the Rabinowitz firm").
The complaint in this action was brought by plaintiff-appellant Joan Hull ("Hull"), an employee of Celanese Corporation ("Celanese"), against Celanese alleging sex-based discrimination in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. In its answer, Celanese denied the material allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Rabinowitz firm filed a motion seeking leave for five other women to intervene as plaintiffs in the action.
The trial court denied Delulio's motion to intervene
Judge Owen premised the denial of intervention on the fact that Delulio had been active in the defense of this very action, thus raising a serious risk of disclosure of confidential information. He found the opportunity for even inadvertent disclosure to be ever-present.
The trial court felt that the continued retention of the Rabinowitz firm would create at least the appearance of impropriety due to the on-going possibility for improper disclosure.
The unusual factual situation presented here bears repetition in some detail. Hull's employment by Celanese began in 1963; Delulio's employment there began in July 1972. In September of 1972, Hull filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Celanese alleging sex-based discrimination in employment. Delulio was assigned to work on the defense of the Hull case in February of 1973 and her work on the case continued until September 1973.
It was during September of 1973 that Hull and Delulio met socially for the first time. Two months later Delulio approached Hull to ascertain the name of the law firm representing Hull. As a result of this conversation, Delulio contacted the Rabinowitz firm on November 9, and on November 15, 1973 the Rabinowitz firm filed sex discrimination charges on behalf of Delulio with the EEOC. Delulio thereafter consulted with the Association of the Bar of the City of New York regarding, inter alia, the propriety of her intervention in the Hull action. By letter dated March 12, 1974, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York advised Delulio against intervention.
The order of disqualification has been held by this Court to be a "final order" and hence appealable pursuant to
The district court bears the responsibility for the supervision of the members of its bar. Handelman v. Weiss, 368 F.Supp. 258, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); E. F. Hutton & Company v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, 378 (S.D.Tex. 1969). The dispatch of this duty is discretionary in nature and the finding of the district court will be upset only upon a showing that an abuse of discretion has taken place. Richardson v. Hamilton International Corporation, 469 F.2d 1382, 1385-86 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 986, 93 S.Ct. 2271, 36 L.Ed.2d 964 (1973). Moreover, in the disqualification situation, any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disqualification. Fleischer v. A. A. P., Inc., 163 F.Supp. 548, 553 (S.D.N.Y.1958), appeal dismissed, 264 F.2d 515 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1002, 79 S.Ct. 1139, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1959).
Factually, this case is distinguishable from our decision in Emle Industries, Inc. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562 (2d Cir. 1973). However, the conclusions reached in that case apply with equal validity here.
In Emle, a lawyer who had previously represented Burlington Industries, Inc. was disqualified when he attempted to represent Emle in litigation against Patentex, a Burlington subsidiary. The matters at issue in the two suits were deemed to be "substantially related". Id. at 571, citing T.C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 113 F.Supp. 265 (S.D.N.Y.1953). In that instance the court felt that the invocation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility was particularly appropriate.
In the instant case we have a divergence from the more usual situation of the lawyer switching sides to represent an interest adverse to his initial representation (as in Emle). Here, the in-house counsel for Celanese switched sides to become a plaintiff (rather than a lawyer) on the other side. Also, here the matter at issue is not merely "substantially related" to the previous representation, rather, it is exactly the same litigation. Thus, while the cases are factually distinguishable, the admonition of Canon 9 is equally appropriate here. This is, in short, one of those cases in which disqualification is "a necessary and desirable remedy . . . to enforce the lawyer's duty of absolute fidelity and to guard against the danger of inadvertent use of confidential information . . .." See Ceramco, Inc. v. Lee Pharmaceuticals, 510 F.2d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 1975).
The Rabinowitz firm argues that they had never worked for Celanese and therefore never had direct access to any confidences of Celanese. They maintain that they carefully cautioned Delulio not to reveal any information received in confidence as an attorney for Celanese, but rather to confine her revelations to them to the facts of her own case. This, they contend would avoid even an indirect transferral of confidential information. They conclude that since they never got any information either directly or indirectly, they could not use the information either consciously or unconsciously.
This argument, somewhat technical in nature, seems to overlook the spirit of Canon 9 as interpreted by this
The Rabinowitz firm had notice that Delulio had worked on the defense of the Hull case and should have declined representation when approached. Had Delulio joined the firm as an assistant counsel in the Hull case, they would have been disqualified. Here she joined them, as it were, as a client. The relation is no less damaging and the presumption in Emle should apply.
Our holding herein is distinguishable from the result reached in Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 497 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 998, 95 S.Ct. 314, 42 L.Ed.2d 272 (1974). There it was held that disqualification was unnecessary since the lawyer had acted properly in defending himself "against `an accusation of wrongful conduct.'" Id. 497 F.2d at 1194-95.
The novel factual situation presented here dictates a narrow reading of this opinion. This decision should not be read to imply that either Hull or Delulio cannot pursue her claim of employment discrimination based on sex. The scope of this opinion must, of necessity, be confined to the facts presented and not read as a broad-brush approach to disqualification.
The preservation of public trust both in the scrupulous administration of justice and in the integrity of the bar is paramount. Recognizably important are Hull's right to counsel of her choice and the consideration of the judicial economy which could be achieved by trying these claims in one lawsuit. These considerations must yield, however, to considerations of ethics which run to the very integrity of our judicial process.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.
73 Civ. 3725 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 1974), at 3.