The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendant's lawyers of record, AMR LLP, due to a conflict of interest.
A law clerk recently hired by AMR LLP had worked closely with the plaintiff for many years at the plaintiffs' counsel's firm.
The court found that while no confidential information was exchanged, the law clerk was a likely material witness regarding the plaintiff's pre-accident condition and employability.
Applying the Essa factors, the court concluded that the proper administration of justice required the removal of the defendant's counsel to avoid the risk of tainted evidence and cross-examination of their own employee.
