Zhang v. Weseley
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-00014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Zhang v. Weseley, Judge Carter denied Zhang’s motion to disqualify defense counsel, finding no demonstrated conflict requiring disqualification.
The ruling affected pro se plaintiff Zhang and the defendants represented jointly by Charles Anthony Franchini and Shari Danielle Steinfeld. Zhang’s request to remove those attorneys was denied, and the order accepted the continued representation described in the opinion.
What happened
In Zhang v. Weseley, pro se plaintiff Zhang asked the court to remove the lawyers jointly representing Peter Weseley and the NYU-affiliated defendants, claiming their interests might conflict.
Zhang listed possible conflicts involving responsibility for harm, settlement, insurance, crossclaims, confidential information, witnesses, employment disputes, and records. The court found that her submissions offered almost no factual support and did not show a substantial risk that the joint representation would harm the trial. It also noted that Weseley and the NYU defendants had knowingly agreed to the representation despite any potential conflict.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Zhang’s motion to disqualify the lawyers. The defendants’ joint representation therefore was not disqualified in this order.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. Weseley · No. 1:23-cv-00014
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 15, 2024
Background
Pro se plaintiff Zhang moved to disqualify Charles Anthony Franchini and Shari Danielle Steinfeld of Amabile & Erman, P.C. Those attorneys jointly represented Peter Weseley, NYU Langone Eye Center, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and Michael Browdy. Zhang argued that the defendants might have conflicting interests.
Arguments
Zhang identified 13 possible conflicts. Among other things, she argued that the defendants might try to shift responsibility among themselves; disagree about whether to contest liability or damages; take different positions on settlement; have disputes involving malpractice insurance or legal fees; assert indemnification claims; possess confidential information harmful to another defendant; have current employees testify against Weseley; have separate employment disputes; or lack access to records relevant to Weseley’s defense.
The court stated that most of Zhang’s submissions contained no factual allegations or evidence. The court identified one factual assertion in her reply: that joint counsel was allegedly less willing to investigate or disclose evidence because of the supposed conflict, making it harder for Zhang to determine who destroyed her medical records.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that attorney disqualification is an exceptional remedy because it separates a client from chosen counsel and can cause delay. In a civil case, disqualification requires an actual conflict that adversely affects counsel’s performance during the trial. The party seeking disqualification must specifically show how prejudice could occur and that the likelihood of prejudice is substantial.
The court held that Zhang had not met that burden. It found that she assumed the lawyers were conflicted and then asserted that she had been harmed, without first providing facts or evidence showing an actual conflict. The court characterized the remaining arguments as premature speculation.
The court also stated that clients may waive or cure a concurrent-representation conflict through informed written consent. According to defense counsel, Weseley understood that the attorneys would represent him along with the NYU defendants and raised no objection. The court treated this as a knowing and intelligent waiver. Defense counsel also submitted an affidavit stating that the NYU defendants had waived potential conflicts in the representation of the NYU defendants and Weseley.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Zhang’s motion to disqualify the attorneys. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were resolved by this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.