Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyerappealmotiontrustcorporationclass actionantitrust
attorneylawyerappealtrustclass actionantitrust

Related Cases

Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283
View Case »
Frey v. Department of Health and Human Services, 106 F.R.D. 32, 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1381
View Case »
Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 201 Conn. 263, 513 A.2d 1211
View Case »
U.S. v. Vague, 697 F.2d 805
View Case »
Government of India v. Cook Industries, Inc., 569 F.2d 737
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

General Motors Corp. v. City of New York, 501 F.2d 639, 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1085, 1974-2 Trade Cases P 75,139

Facts

On October 4, 1972, the City of New York filed a complaint against General Motors Corporation, alleging violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act due to GM's monopolization of the city bus market. The City sought to represent a class of non-federal governmental units that had purchased city buses or parts. Reycraft, the City's attorney, had previously worked for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and had substantial involvement in a prior case against GM regarding similar antitrust issues. The City moved for class action status, while GM sought to disqualify Reycraft based on his previous government role.

On October 4, 1972, the City filed a complaint alleging that GM had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to monopolize and monopolizing ‘trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of city buses.’

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying GM's motion to disqualify the City's attorney, George Reycraft, due to the appearance of impropriety stemming from his prior government employment.

The Court of Appeals, Irving R. Kaufman, Chief Judge, held that resulting appearance of impropriety in relation to role of City's attorney, who had formerly been employed by the Justice Department and who, at that time, had had substantial responsibility in investigatory and preparatory stages of antitrust action against bus manufacturer, required disqualification of attorney.

Rule

A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety, and a lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee.

A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.

Analysis

The court determined that Reycraft's prior substantial involvement in the antitrust case against GM created an appearance of impropriety in his representation of the City. Despite the district court's finding that Reycraft had not changed sides, the appellate court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal profession and concluded that Reycraft's engagement constituted private employment in a matter where he had substantial responsibility as a public employee.

Accordingly, the court's order denying disqualification of Reycraft is reversed.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order denying disqualification of Reycraft, emphasizing the need to avoid any appearance of impropriety in legal representation.

Appeal from order granting class action status dismissed, order denying disqualification of attorney reversed.

Who won?

The City of New York prevailed in the appeal regarding the disqualification of Reycraft, as the court found that his prior government role created an appearance of impropriety.

The court's order denying disqualification of Reycraft is reversed.

You must be