Streichert v. Town of Chester, New York
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-07133-KMK-JCM
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Streichert v. Town of Chester, Judge Karas ordered more evidence before deciding whether to disqualify plaintiff’s lawyer over confidential information.
The order affected Streichert’s lawyer, Michael H. Sussman, and Walter Popailo, requiring both to provide additional materials for the court’s review; it also addressed the defendants’ request to disqualify Sussman.
What happened
In Streichert v. Town of Chester, New York, Loretta Streichert sued the Town and several officials, claiming they paid her less than a male employee and passed her over for a position because she is a woman. The defendants asked the court to remove her lawyer, Michael H. Sussman, from the case.
The defendants argued that Sussman had earlier spoken with Walter Popailo, the male employee at the center of Streichert’s allegations, as a possible client and might have learned confidential information. Popailo said he had shared nonpublic information, while Sussman said he had received no confidential or significantly harmful information.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not yet grant or deny the request to remove Sussman. Instead, Judge Karas ordered Popailo and Sussman to provide affidavits, emails, and notes for confidential court review by October 27, 2020, and said the court would later decide whether a hearing was needed.
The detailed version
- Streichert v. Town of Chester, New York · No. 7:19-cv-07133-KMK-JCM
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 13, 2020
Background
Loretta Streichert brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging intentional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She alleged that the Town of Chester and the individual defendants paid her less than Walter Popailo, who had previously led the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department, and later selected Popailo for a Recreation Director position for which she had applied.
The defendants moved to disqualify Streichert’s lawyer, Michael H. Sussman. They relied principally on New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18, which addresses a lawyer’s duties to a prospective client—someone who consults with a lawyer about possibly hiring that lawyer even though no attorney-client relationship results. The rule restricts use or disclosure of confidential information received from a prospective client and can bar representation adverse to that person in the same or a substantially related matter if the information could significantly harm the prospective client.
Disputed Facts
The parties disputed what Popailo told Sussman during their consultation. Popailo stated that he provided information he believed was confidential and not publicly known. Sussman acknowledged that Popailo had consulted him after his termination and that they exchanged emails and met, but Sussman maintained that Popailo made no admissions and that he received no confidential or significantly harmful information.
The court also noted a dispute over whether any information received from Popailo could be significantly harmful to him in Streichert’s case. The court reserved judgment on whether the other requirements of Rule 1.18—materially adverse interests and the same or a substantially related matter—were satisfied.
Court’s Action
The court held that resolving the disqualification motion required further factual development. It ordered Popailo to identify specifically any confidential or privileged information he disclosed to Sussman and any information that could significantly harm him in the case. Popailo also had to provide existing emails and contemporaneous notes concerning his communications with Sussman.
The court similarly ordered Sussman to provide existing emails and notes. Sussman was permitted to submit a supplemental affidavit addressing the issues identified in the order. Both men were directed to file unredacted submissions under seal for the court’s private review and redacted versions for public filing, with submissions due by October 27, 2020. Judge Kenneth M. Karas stated that, after reviewing the submissions, the court would decide whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary.
The order therefore required additional evidence but did not state that the motion to disqualify was granted or denied.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.