An order from the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered April 20, 2017, which denied defendants Martin W. Edelman and Edelman & Edelman, P.C. (the Edelman defendants) and defendant-counterclaim plaintiff’s Paul F. Callan’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on Callan’s counterclaims and granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Callan and the Edelman defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the accounting cause of action as against the Edelman defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is evidence in the record that Callan, while still a partner at plaintiff law firm, worked with defendants to woo a prospective client, concealing from his partners the true nature and extent of his involvement in the matter as he prepared to leave the firm, after which departure he entered into a contingency fee agreement on the matter.

Accordingly, Callan and the Edelman defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was correctly denied, except for the accounting claim as against the Edelman defendants. Since these defendants have no fiduciary duty to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have no right to an accounting from them, even predicated on their alleged aiding and abetting of Callan’s breach of fiduciary duty to plaintiffs (see Front, Inc. v Khalil, 103 AD3d 481, 483 [1st Dept 2013], affd on other grounds 24 NY3d 713 [2015]; Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf, 238 AD2d 234, 242 [1st Dept 1997]).

No prejudice or surprise results from plaintiffs’ amendment of the complaint, and the proposed amended complaint is not palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law (see McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

The New York Post had the story of the dispute. 

A legal ethics expert for CNN cheated his former law partners out of an estimated $3 million in fees from a wrongful-imprisonment case he secretly pursued on the side, a new Manhattan lawsuit charges.

Celebrity lawyer Paul Callan left his city law firm, Callan, Koster, Brady & Nagler, in January, but before exiting, he started working with an outside attorney to represent Jonathan Fleming in his exoneration bid.

Fleming eventually won $6.25 million from the city after being wrongly imprisoned for nearly 25 years for the murder of a childhood buddy. And Callan and the lawyer he worked with on the case split a $2 million cut, the suit said.

Callan’s former partners say he “betrayed” them by taking that dough and likely another $2 million from Fleming’s pending claim against the state, according to their lawyer, Larry Hutcher.

“Callan’s double-dealing is ironic, considering he holds himself out on public television, including appearances on stations such as CNN, as a so-called expert on attorneys’ ethics,” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit says.

Callan, 65, claims that he left the firm to “pursue his media career with CNN and to possibly pursue relationships with other law firms,” the suit says.

Clifford Robert, Callan’s lawyer, told The Post, “The suit is utterly and completely false, and merely a sad attempt to obtain money by defaming one of the most highly respected attorneys in New York. We look forward to demonstrating this in court.”

The complaint is linked here. (Mike Frisch)