Court Opinion

ID: 9808029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:25:31.880906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:03.432960
License: Public Domain

Kapnick, J.,
dissents in part in a memorandum as follows: I agree that Greenberg must be disqualified from representing the co-guardians since, at the onset of his representation of Edward Strasser in this Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding, Mr. Strasser did not wish to have a guardian appointed, thus creating “materially adverse” interests between the former client and the current clients (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.9 [a]). Moreover, Mr. Strasser was unable to give “informed consent” (id.) to Greenberg’s subsequent representation of the co-guardians due to Mr. Strasser’s cognitive impairment.
However, I disagree that Mrs. Strasser and Ika Brakha, the two co-guardians of Mr. Strasser’s person, must each retain their own separate counsel at this time. While the circumstances that the co-guardians have competing financial interests under a certain trust and are both beneficiaries under Mr. Strasser’s will, which were cited by the motion court as to why there cannot be a joint representation, would prevent an attorney from jointly representing the co-guardians in a matter where these issues were specifically being litigated, these issues do not create a conflict in the instant article 81 proceeding, where both co-guardians are advocating for, and have a fiduciary duty to, Mr. Strasser. In any event, the co-guardians here are serving as guardians of the person, not the property, further insuring that any potential conflicts the co-guardians may have under a certain trust or Mr. Strasser’s will should not impede their choice to be jointly represented in this proceeding. To be clear, however, this is not to say that Mr. Strasser and the co-guardians may be jointly represented.
In addition, there is no indication that the joint representation here “involve [d] the lawyer in representing differing interests” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] *460rule 1.7 [a] [1]), where the co-guardians were aligned in their request to remove the property guardian for nonfeasance and/or malfeasance as to his handling of Mr. Strasser’s financial affairs. Even if the instant representation had raised any conflict, the co-guardians each gave their written consent to the representation and waived any potential conflict of interest in accordance with rule 1.7, and there is no contention that the disclosure or consents were inadequate.