Legal Opinion

Caplan v. Braverman

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 17, 1995No. Civ. A. 94-7506PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

JOYNER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel on the basis of Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(the Ethics Rules). The Ethics Rules have been adopted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to Local Rule 14(IV)(B).

Plaintiff Maia Caplan has sued her former employer, the law firm of Feliheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey (the Firm) and one of its partners, David Bravennaii, for violations of state common law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e — 2000e-17 (1994), as a result…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. StoutDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Fognani v. YoungSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  2. Main Events Productions, LLC v. LacyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2002
  3. International Resource Ventures, Inc. v. Diamond Mining Co. of America, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  4. Standard Quimica De Venezuela, C.A. v. Central Hispano International, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1998
  5. Stewart v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 2001

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API