Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

W. E. Bassett Co. v. H. C. Cook Co.

W. E. Bassett Co. v. H. C. Cook Co., 302 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1962)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1962-05-09
Topic
general

PER curiam:. This appeal has been taken from an order entered below on the court’s own motion disqualifying one of plaintiff’s attorneys while trial was in progress. The trial judge filed a written opinion, to which reference may be had, in which he found that though no actual improprieties had thus far occurred and that all adversary counsel had thus far acted with scrupulous regard of professional duties, responsibilities and ethics, “Circumstances have now [been] created which, with Mr. Cuningham remaining in the case, will inevitably lead to suspicion and distrust in the minds of the defendant and the opportunity for misunderstanding on the part of the public which will lead to a lack of confidence in the bar.” We have reviewed the circumstances that caused the order of disqualification to be entered, and we agree with the court below. Order of disqualification affirmed, D.C., 201 F.Supp. 821.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed W. E. Bassett Co. v. H. C. Cook Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
W.E. BASSETT COMPANY v. H.C. COOK COMPANY,302 F.2d 268(2nd Cir. 1962)
The W.E. BASSETT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The H.C. COOK COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, Lighter Corporation of America, Britton Manufacturing
Company and Ernest C. Britton, Defendants. John B. CUNINGHAM,
Respondent-Appellant, v. The H.C. COOK COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 336, Docket 27389.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 30, 1962.
Decided May 9, 1962.
Appeal by client and companion appeal by its attorney, seeking review of order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Robert P. Anderson, Chief Judge, on the court's own motion disqualifying appellant attorney from further representation of appellant client at the trial.
Samuel A. Persky, New Haven, Conn. (Mandeville Mullally, Stewart W. Richards, Roy C. Hopgood, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Patterson, Belknap Webb, New York City (Richard G. Moser, Robert P. Patterson, Jr., Craig B. Bright, Peter D. Junger, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Stewart W. Richards, New York City, for respondent-appellant.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.Page 269
PER CURIAM.
This appeal has been taken from an order entered below on the court's own motion disqualifying one of plaintiff's attorneys while trial was in progress. The trial judge filed a written opinion, to which reference may be had, in which he found that though no actual improprieties had thus far occurred and that all adversary counsel had thus far acted with scrupulous regard of professional duties, responsibilities and ethics, "Circumstances have now [been] created which, with Mr. Cuningham remaining in the case, will inevitably lead to suspicion and distrust in the minds of the defendant and the opportunity for misunderstanding on the part of the public which will lead to a lack of confidence in the bar."

We have reviewed the circumstances that caused the order of disqualification to be entered, and we agree with the court below.

Order of disqualification affirmed, D.C.,201 F. Supp. 821.Page 270