Terri Trueheart v. Victor Greco (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this post-judgment matter the plaintiff has moved that Attorney Steven Levy be disqualified from representing the defendant (# 171).   The court heard oral argument and testimony on September 21, 2010 and received briefs from the parties.

In May 2008, the plaintiff hired the law firm of Febbroriello, Conti & Levy to represent her in this dissolution of marriage case.   The partners at that firm handled their own cases from start to finish and rarely worked on a file of another lawyer in the firm.   The plaintiff received direct representation from one of the firm partners, Attorney John P. Febbroriello, with the help of his legal assistant, Gail M. Vedovelli.   Attorney Febbroriello filed a firm appearance for the plaintiff which reflects that she was being represented by the firm of Febbroriello, Conti & Levy. At that time, Attorney Steven Levy was a partner in the firm.

Although Attorney Levy has no recollection of these events, the plaintiff testified that she met Attorney Levy on two occasions when visiting the firm offices on Prospect Street in Torrington.   Once, Attorney Febbroriello gave Attorney Levy a brief overview of the case in front of the plaintiff.   On another occasion, the plaintiff saw Attorney Levy looking at some of her file material along with other people.   Apparently these interactions were fleeting and inconsequential.   It is not surprising that Attorney Levy has no recollection of them.   Attorney Levy never worked on the plaintiff's file, nor has he discussed the plaintiff's file with Attorney Febbroriello.

In July 2008, Attorney Febbroriello withdrew from the firm of Febbroriello, Conti & Levy to open his own one-person practice.   The remaining members of the firm commenced a new firm known as Conti & Levy. The two firms share the same building, telephone number, library and receptionist, but otherwise have separate files, computers, billing and employees.   Gail M. Vedovelli now works as a legal assistant for Attorney William Conti, a partner in Conti & Levy. Attorney Levy has never discussed the plaintiff's case with Ms. Vedovelli, and he has testified that he will not do so in the future.

On July 14, 2008 Attorney Febbroriello filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff in lieu of the firm appearance of Febbroriello, Conti & Levy. On October 16, 2008, the court granted Attorney Febbroriello's motion to withdraw from the case.   Thereafter, the plaintiff has been represented by Attorney Maureen Donahue.   Attorney Donahue represented the plaintiff in a lengthy trial of this case during which the defendant was represented by Attorney Lois Anderson.   There are several post-judgment motions which have been filed.   On August 5, 2010, Attorney Levy filed an appearance on behalf of Conti & Levy to represent the defendant in lieu of Attorney Anderson.

The plaintiff argues that Attorney Levy's continued representation of the defendant violates Rule 1.9 and Rule 1.10 of the Rules of Professional conduct.   The defendant points out that neither section applies to the facts of this case because Attorney Levy does not possess any confidential information acquired from plaintiff or her file which could be put to use to the disadvantage of the plaintiff.   I agree with the defendant.   It is clear from the evidence presented to me that Attorney Levy acquired no information about the plaintiff while she was a client at Febbroriello, Conti & Levy. Nor has he ever subsequently acquired any information about her from Attorney Febbroriello or Ms. Vedovelli.   Both sections of the Rules apply to situations where an attorney has acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9.   Attorney Levy never acquired such information.

Additionally, Ms. Vedovelli's current employment with Conti & Levy does not require a disqualification.   She has never transmitted any information about the plaintiff to Attorney Levy, nor will she in the future.   She does not work with Attorney Levy on his files and will not work on this file.   Absent an actual disclosure of confidential material, there is no reason to disqualify Attorney Levy on account of Ms. Vedovelli's current position.

For these reasons, the motion to disqualify Attorney Levy is denied.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

Pickard, John W., J.