KARI A. DOOLEY, JUDGE.
This collection action was commenced by Drexel Heritage Furniture Industries, Inc. ("Drexel") against defendants Aimee and George Benedetto. Drexel filed a Motion to Disqualify counsel for the defendants on June 24, 2005, in which Drexel sets forth a series of facts and events which purport to give rise to an unwaivable conflict of interest for counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to disqualify counsel is DENIED.
The matter was marked "ready" on the non-arguable calendar along with plaintiff's motions for default for failure to disclose a defense. Oral argument had been requested on the instant motion and the court scheduled argument for October 13, 2005. At the hearing, counsel for the Benedettos was ordered to file a responsive pleading, which they ultimately did.
This collection action involves financing advanced to "Brookfield Furniture Stores, LLC" and guaranteed by George Benedetto and Aimee Benedetto. During the depositions of George and Aimee Benedetto, it became clear that George Benedetto, following his personal bankruptcy in 1992, used Aimee Benedetto's name and credit in order to obtain financing for various business adventures. Aimee Benedetto's deposition established that she was generally aware of this practice and signed whatever her father gave her to sign. Although on paper she owned properties and businesses, she had no involvement in the development of these properties or the running of these businesses.
The business at issue in this lawsuit was known as "Brookfield Furniture Stores LLC" and it is the entity which Drexel advanced in excess of 1,300,000.00 which Drexel now seeks to recoup. At her deposition, Aimee Benedetto denied signing the documents bearing her name which were submitted to Drexel. She opined that her father signed her name though she had no knowledge of that event; she was surprised to see that she had any involvement in this particular business; she did not authorize anyone to submit the documents to Drexel. After these statements, counsel for Drexel pressed Aimee Benedetto as to whether she would assert a defense in this action, essentially claiming that her father signed her name without her permission. Aimee Benedetto stated CT Page 6185 that she could not answer the question as she did not fully understand the legal consequences of taking such a position. She said however, "Anything in my life, as long as I live, regarding this matter or any other matter, I would never intentionally, deliberately go out of my way to put my father in a bad situation, even if at this point — I mean I can't even — I don't know all that entailed, but I couldn't see me doing that where it would be me against my father kind of thing."
Subsequent to her deposition, following the filing of the instant motion, Aimee Benedetto signed an affidavit in which she repeats her knowledge that her father used her name and credit at various times. She further states: "While I am not aware of the exact documents and transactions in which my father may have used or signed my name, he had my general permission to use my name and to sign my name. I have no conflicts with my father. I approve of his actions using my name and credit and signing my name." Whether these statements are a clarification of her deposition testimony in which she denied authorizing anyone to submit the subject papers to Drexel, or a ratification of her father's conduct after the fact, is of no moment. It removes the issue of conflicting defenses from the case, thereby removing the issue of a conflict for counsel.
The Court would have greatly preferred for Aimee Benedetto to consult independent counsel on this issue. She was advised to do so and declined to do so. Indeed, she indicates her desire to keep her present counsel.
The Motion to Disqualify Counsel is DENIED.