Koczwara v. Nationwide General Insurance Company

Background

Matthew S. Aboulafia filed a letter-motion for the Aboulafia Law Firm, LLC, seeking permission for the firm to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Stanislaw Koczwara. The motion stated that the attorney and client fundamentally disagreed about how to proceed. Aboulafia also sought a retaining lien on the files, a charging lien under New York law against any potential future judgment or settlement in Koczwara’s favor, and a 30-day stay to allow Koczwara to retain new counsel.

The opinion states that Koczwara was copied on the motion and affidavit by first-class mail and email, but that counsel did not file a formal certificate of service. The court construed the motion as seeking permission for both Matthew S. Aboulafia and Jack Glanzberg to withdraw.

Sealing and Redaction

The court stated that the unsealed filings appeared to violate New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 because they disclosed settlement negotiations, advice about a specific proposed settlement, and details of the disagreement between counsel and client. As a temporary measure, the court ordered the motion and affidavit placed under seal. Defendant was ordered to discard paper or electronic copies of the unredacted filings.

Aboulafia was ordered to promptly file redacted versions that do not disclose the substance of the settlement negotiations, the details of the proposed settlement advice, or the details of the attorney-client disagreement. The order authorized that filing. The court also directed the Clerk to change the viewing level of the original filings to “ex parte,” meaning accessible only to the court and the filing party. The order separately states that access to the sealed papers is restricted to the plaintiff’s attorneys and the court.

Responses and Conference

Aboulafia was ordered to promptly serve the order, motion, and affidavit on Koczwara and file formal proof of service. Koczwara could respond by a signed letter sent to the court by email or delivered by mail, courier, or overnight service. His response had to identify the case and docket number, be signed by him, be submitted by February 8, 2021, and be served on Aboulafia at the same time. He was not required to serve defendant. Other objections or responses were also due February 8.

The court scheduled a telephone conference for February 11, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Aboulafia and Koczwara were required to attend; defendant and its counsel were not required to attend.

Issues Reserved for the Conference

At the conference, the withdrawing attorneys were ordered to be prepared to discuss whether they seek a retaining lien, a charging lien under New York Judiciary Law § 475, or both. If a charging lien is sought, they must address whether they have “good cause” to withdraw and whether the circumstances provide “satisfactory reasons” under Local Civil Rule 1.4. The court cited decisions stating that a client’s refusal to accept a settlement offer is not, by itself, sufficient cause for withdrawal.

Disposition

The order addressed sealing, redaction, service, responses, and the scheduling of a conference. It did not state that the motion to withdraw was granted or denied.