{"id":"court_sdny_118_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":118,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 118","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"July 28, 2023\nVIA ECF\nHon. Analisa Torres\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan\nUnited States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nRe:\nUnited States v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette,” S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nDear Judge Torres:\nThe Government writes further to its letter dated July 24, 2023 (Dkt. 114), and to request\nthe Court order the briefing schedule proposed below for a motion to disqualify Emil Bove as\ncounsel to Yanping Wang.\nBy way of background, on July 22, 2023, Emil Bove filed a notice of appearance in this\nmatter indicating that Bove intended to represent Wang.  The same day, Bove filed a motion\nseeking to replace Priya Chaudhry as Wang’s lead counsel, while Alex Lipman would remain as\nadditional counsel to Wang.  (Dkt. 113-1.)  The Government next requested that the Court stay\nconsideration of Bove’s motion to substitute so that Bove and the Government could discuss\npotential conflict issues.\nThose conflict issues relate to Bove’s role as a supervisor of the National Security and\nInternational Narcotics Unit in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of\nNew York (“NSIN”) from approximately September 2019 through approximately January 2022.\nWhile Bove was supervisor, that unit investigated Wang’s co-defendant, Ho Wan Kwok.  After\nBove filed his notice of appearance, the Government advised Bove that it believes his proposed\nrepresentation of Wang in this matter implicates the conflict-of-interest provisions of applicable\nrules of professional conduct.  Specifically, former government attorneys “shall not represent a\nclient in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as\na public officer or employee.”  New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(a)(2).  These\nprovisions, and others, were discussed with Bove who respectfully disagrees with the\nGovernment’s interpretation of them, necessitating this Court’s intervention.\nThe Silvio J. Mol\n\nOne Saint Andrew\n\nNew York, New Y\n\nU.S. Depar\n\nUnited Stat\n\nSouthern D\n\n7/28/2023\n\n---\n\nThe Government and Bove have conferred, and jointly propose the following briefing\nschedule for the Court’s consideration:\nGovernment’s motion:\nAugust 4, 2023\nBove’s response:\nAugust 7, 2023\nGovernment’s reply:\nAugust 9, 2023\nThe Government is available to address any questions the Court may have.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\n      By:\nJuliana N. Murray\nRyan B. Finkel\nMicah F. Fergenson\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\nCc:\nAll Counsel of Record (by ECF)\nGRANTED.  The parties shall adhere to\nthe above deadlines.\nSO ORDERED.\nDated: July 28, 2023\n\nNew York, New York","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":407,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:50:25"}