Delo v. Fordham University
- Figueredo
- 1:24-cv-06025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Delo v. Fordham University, Judge Figueredo denied Delo’s motion to disqualify Fordham’s law firm, finding no qualifying conflict.
Benjamin J. Delo and Fordham University’s attorneys at Cullen and Dykman LLP were directly affected. The motion was denied, allowing the firm to continue representing Fordham in the case.
What happened
In Benjamin J. Delo v. Fordham University, Delo asked the court to consider removing Fordham’s lawyers, Cullen and Dykman LLP, because of an alleged conflict of interest. He pointed to lawyers at the firm who attended Fordham and alleged that the firm or its members donated to political activist groups.
Delo asked the court to require the firm to disclose its relationship with Fordham and provide records about donations to Fordham and political groups. The court found no indication that the lawyers had previously represented Delo or might use his confidential information, and no evidence that their representation would undermine the case or prevent them from vigorously representing Fordham.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Delo’s motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it from the docket.
The detailed version
- Delo v. Fordham University · No. 1:24-cv-06025
- Figueredo
- June 3, 2025
Background
On May 23, 2025, Benjamin J. Delo moved to have the court consider whether Cullen and Dykman LLP, Fordham University’s law firm, should be disqualified because of an alleged conflict of interest. Delo identified two alleged conflicts: the firm’s website listed at least six partners as Fordham alumni, and he alleged that the firm and its members had donated to political activist groups. He asked the court to require the firm to disclose its relationship with Fordham and provide accounting information about donations to Fordham and political groups.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that motions to disqualify opposing counsel receive strict scrutiny because they can be used tactically. Disqualification is generally appropriate when a conflict undermines confidence in the lawyer’s vigorous representation or when a lawyer might use confidential information obtained through a prior representation.
The court found that neither ground was present. Delo did not claim that Fordham’s attorneys had previously represented him, so the alleged conflicts did not raise a concern that they could use his privileged information. Delo also did not claim that the lawyers’ representation would taint the trial, and the record contained no evidence that Cullen and Dykman would be unable to vigorously represent Fordham if the case proceeded.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Delo’s motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 37. The opinion does not state the claims underlying Delo’s lawsuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.