Bressler Risk Blog

As always, with thanks, the latest from Bill Freivogel:

• Sheldon-Lee v. Birch Horton Bittner, Inc., No. S-18214 (Alaska March 21, 2025).
  • “Legal malpractice case. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant law firm on statute of limitations grounds. In this opinion the Alaska Supreme Court reversed. The only issue of possible interest to this audience is the court noted the failure of a law firm to tell a client about the law firm’s conflict of interest could toll the running of the statute.”
• Salerno v. Family Heritage Life Ins. Co., 2025 WL 843387 (N.D. Ohio March 18, 2025).
  • “Plaintiff is suing Defendant for compensation. Defendant offered the opinion of its own vice president (‘Expert’) to opine on the present value of Plaintiff’s earnings. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Expert.”
  • “In this opinion the court denied the motion. Expert was not involved in the periodic review of Plaintiff’s work or in Defendant’s decision regarding denial of Plaintiff’s compensation. Thus, Expert’s relationship with Defendant goes to the weight of his testimony and is grist for cross-examination.”
• Gross v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2025 WL 885853 (N.D. Cal. March 21, 2025).
  • “This is a discovery dispute involving privilege and work-product. In the opinion the court acknowledged in California the insurer, absent a conflict, has two clients.”
• Lukoil Pan Ams. LLC v. Phoeninca Invs. LLC, No. 653336/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County March 17, 2024).
  • “A global law firm (‘Law Firm’) represents Plaintiff. Defendant moved to disqualify Law Firm, claiming Law Firm represented Defendant in 2016-17.”
  • “In this opinion the court denied the motion. First, the court noted Law Firm never represented Defendant; it represented one of the companies that formed Defendant (‘Other Client’).”
  • “Second, in the earlier matter, Other Client agreed to Law Firm’s engagement terms, which provided only Other Client was a client. The engagement terms also included an advance waiver, which the court said applied here.”
  • “Last, because the conduct complained of in this case occurred after the completion of Law Firm’s earlier work for Other Client, the matters were not related.”
• Johnson v. Dep’t of Transp., 2025 WL 829714 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. March 17, 2025).
  • At some point, in this employment-related case, Defendant’s lawyer sent to Plaintiff’s supervisor at Defendant (“Supervisor”) an email about the case. The opinion does not say what was in the email or why Defendant’s lawyer sent it to Supervisor. Supervisor sent an image of the email to Plaintiff (the enemy, no less). Plaintiff gave it to his lawyer (“Lawyer”). Lawyer dutifully notified Defendant about receipt of the image. Lawyer then showed the email around to others, including three of Plaintiff’s experts. When the smoke cleared, Defendant moved to disqualify Lawyer and Plaintiff’s experts. The trial court granted the motion. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed. Among other things, the appellate court said that upon receipt of the email, Lawyer had a duty to ascertain whether it was privileged before disseminating it. [Our note: This is an exhaustive opinion on whether the email was privileged, whether the privilege was waived, the receiving lawyer’s duties, and so forth. The appellate court’s cites are numerous and almost all California cases. However, the reasoning would seem valid in any U.S. jurisdiction where authorities are relatively scarce.]

“International Lawyers Headed to the US Advised to Take More Precautions” —

• “Getting ready to head to New York for the legal industry conference LegalWeek, Toronto lawyer Monica Goyal was paranoid that U.S. border authorities were going to search her phone.”
• “As a technology lawyer who has been widely recognized by the legal industry, Goyal’s standard travel procedure is to keep minimal things on her phone. For instance, she has no social media apps. Despite that, stories of detentions, questioning, and refusals of entry at the U.S. border had her spooked.”
• “Lawyers say her concerns aren’t misplaced, as the Trump regime is not only laser-focused on the legal profession but is implementing what one lawyer called ‘extreme vetting,’ both at border crossings and ‘integrity-based stops.'”
• ‘The Trump administration is reaching to, and exploring, the limits of its authority to search phones, laptops, tablets, and other similar devices,’ said Bo Cooper, a Washington, D.C.-based partner and head of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy’s government strategies and compliance group.”
• “Regardless of the current environment, privacy lawyer David Fraser said anybody crossing a border has a reduced expectation of privacy so they should proactively take steps to guard personal information, and in the case of lawyers, particularly, any privileged material on electronic devices.”
• “Similar warnings have been issued to U.S. citizens traveling to China for years. But heightened concerns about what could happen at U.S. border crossings are recent.”
• “‘The best step that any lawyer can take in traveling internationally is essentially to remove all privileged material from your laptop, from your tablet, and from your smartphone. If you need access to those materials while you’re traveling, use a cloud-based service,’ Fraser said.”
• “Asserting solicitor-client privilege may have worked to protect lawyers’ devices from searches in the past, but the reality is border officials in the U.S. can search electronic devices without any grounds whatsoever, said Robert Currie, a professor at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law in Nova Scotia.”
• “Once your device is open, border officials may review what’s on it, copy files, and analyze the data.”
• “Currie said the law around border searches in the U.S. is ‘fractured’ with opinions from various appellate courts saying different things.”
  ‘But generally speaking, [U.S.] border search law has essentially said they can mostly do arbitrary searches of things people have with them at the border,’ Currie said.”
• “The best advice is to cross the border with clean devices. But even if you’ve scrubbed your phone of social media apps, Fraser noted that at the border, you are obliged to answer questions honestly. So, if border guards ask for your account passwords, you have to give them up or face potential detention.”
• ‘That may be something that lawyers and others want to turn their mind to in terms of what’s out there in their digital footprint,’ said Fraser.”

“Standing Up to Trump Is Good for Big Law’s Business. No, Really” —

• “Albany Law professor Ray Brescia says Paul Weiss’s agreement with President Donald Trump may send a message that the law firm won’t zealously advocate for their clients against the US government.”
• “Critics inside and out of the legal profession have derided Paul Weiss’ decision to reach an agreement so President Donald Trump would revoke an executive order punishing the firm for its past political actions and hobbling its ability to represent clients.”
• “Some begrudgingly have accepted the firm’s justification—that the potential to lose business was far too great. But no one should welcome a situation in which lawyers can be cowed by the US government. In fact, a client should seek out lawyers who will fight for their interests and rights without fear that doing so could anger the government.”
• “In the high-priced world of Big Law, lawyers often are recruited from government agencies precisely because of their relationships with the government lawyers who might appear on the other side of client disputes. This can take the form of a white-collar criminal defense case before the Department of Justice, an application for a business merger before the Federal Trade Commission, or an energy company looking for regulatory approval for a new power plant from the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “Clients want lawyers who can handle such cases competently and probably would prefer those who have effective relationships with regulators on the other side of the table.”
• “But no client should want a lawyer whose very claim to fame is that they will capitulate to this administration—or any administration—when the chips are down.”
• “If a government adversary knows the law firm on the other side of the table is more concerned about maintaining its reputation for having a good relationship with the government than winning, what won’t the other side ask for? When will the demands imposed on those lawyers’ clients end? What negotiating power will a lawyer with such a reputation, and for maintaining that reputation, have?”
• “In any negotiation, a lawyer always must present at least a credible threat that they will turn down an offer, go to the mat for a client, take a case to trial, or break off the negotiations. A lawyer who wants to stay in the good graces of the government can’t mount such a credible threat.”
• “It’s fine for a lawyer to have a reputation as an honest broker or a straight shooter. But an advocate who cares more about their reputation and relationships with the powerful than representing their client is antithetical to our adversarial system and inconsistent with legal professional values.”
• “A go-along-to-get-along attitude won’t serve many—if any—clients well. And when push comes to shove, a lawyer concerned with maintaining a reputation as an administration-cowing lawyer isn’t likely to fight for a client’s interests.”
• “It is for this reason that any firm trying to justify capitulation to the government pressure over possibly losing clients should ring so hollow. Knowing what’s at stake, informed consumers of legal services should recognize the risks associated with capitulating to governmental overreach, even in the business context, far outweigh their perceived benefits.”
• “Clients should send market signals of their own, showing they prefer lawyers who will fight for them when they need them to, and not care more about remaining in the good graces of the government.”
• “Not many private lawyers or advocates would look forward to having Paul Weiss attorneys on the other side of the negotiating table. But for the first time in its 150-year history, lawyers for the federal government might be all too happy to sit down with them.”

“Indictment Of Partner Does Not Disqualify Firm” —

• “The New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify a law firm based on the indictment of a partner who withdrew after the criminal charges were brought:
  • ‘Plaintiff Penelope Mauer appeals from the trial court’s July 31, 2024 order denying her motion to disqualify the law firm of Brown & Connery LLC (B&C) as counsel for defendants. The primary issue on appeal is whether the indictment of William Tambussi, Esq. (Tambussi), a law partner at B&C, creates a conflict of interest requiring the disqualification of the entire law firm from representing defendants in this action. We conclude no conflict of interest exists under the circumstances presented and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.’
  • ‘In June 2024, the State indicted Tambussi, alleging that he participated with George Norcross in crimes related to the development of the Camden waterfront. The indictment states Tambussi ‘is an attorney and partner’ at B&C and ‘the long-time personal attorney to’ Norcross. It alleged Norcross and his associates extorted and coerced others to acquire property and development rights and that Tambussi ‘was an active participant in the Norcross Enterprise’s plot to use . . . Camden’s government to bring a condemnation action’ against a developer.’
• “Tambussi then withdrew and was replaced by other counsel from his firm:
  • ‘Against the backdrop of Tambussi’s indictment and B&C’s continued representation of defendants, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the law firm. Specifically, she contended B&C had an unwaivable conflict of interest due to the Attorney General’s indictment of Tambussi. Relying on Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.7(a)(2), plaintiff argued Tambussi’s indictment created a ‘significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.’ She asserted this conflict was imputed to the other lawyers associated with B&C under RPC 1.10.’
  • ‘Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the indictment of Tambussi does not create a positional conflict requiring B&C’s disqualification. Notably, the DOL has not determined a positional conflict exists, as required by the AG Guidelines. Id. at 3. Indeed, Cohen, who is fully aware of the underlying litigation and plaintiff’s motion to disqualify, certified the DOL has not terminated B&C’s representation of defendants or requested their withdrawal. Defendants also certified they desired the continued representation by B&C. ‘
  • ‘Moreover, the indictment named Tambussi individually as a defendant. Tambussi did not perform any substantive work in this case prior to the indictment. Additionally, the allegations against Tambussi regarding certain real estate transactions in Camden are far afield from plaintiff’s underlying CEPA and breach of contract claims in this consolidated matter.’
  • ‘Thus, in defending against plaintiff’s employment-based claims, B&C will not be required to advocate a position that is inconsistent with or prejudicial to the State’s interest in prosecuting unrelated criminal charges against Tambussi.’
  • ‘Plaintiff’s argument presupposes Tambussi in fact had a conflict based on his indictment. However, we need not reach that issue because even if we assume, for the purposes of this appeal, he had a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)(2) based on ‘there [being] a substantial risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited . . . by a personal interest of the lawyer,’ that does not end the inquiry. A finding that Tambussi had a conflict based on his ‘personal interest,’ in turn, requires us to consider whether his purported conflict under RPC 1.7 is imputed to B&C under RPC 1.10. Assuming a conflict exists for Tambussi under RPC 1.7(a)(2) because of a personal interest as a result of the indictment, there would be no imputed conflict to B&C under RPC 1.10 because no conflict is imputed when the purported conflict is ‘based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer,’ provided the personal interest ‘does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.’ Plaintiff has made no such showing here.’

“Judges cannot provide analysis on executive orders, MD ethics panel says” —

• “Maryland judges cannot provide bar association members with information or legal analysis on White House executive orders, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee found in an opinion published on Tuesday.”
• “The opinion, published in response to a judge and a Maryland State Bar Association section council member’s inquiry, states that a judge’s participation in providing legal analysis on the White House executive orders ‘might reasonably raise a question of impropriety,’ contrary to the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct.”
• “‘Although judges appropriately participate in general educational activities through the MSBA and other bar organizations, in our view, for the current and recalled/senior judges who serve on these MSBA committees, the evaluation and analysis of White House Executive Orders is so specific that it would constitute the practice of law and, moreover, can be seen as indirectly advising the members’ clients themselves,’ the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee wrote.”
• “The ethics committee added that providing legal analysis on executive orders could also be viewed as engaging in ‘partisan political activity,’ which is prohibited by the judicial conduct code.”
• “In the opinion, the ethics committee also recognized that the executive orders have spawned numerous lawsuits nationwide, mostly in federal courts, but noted that similar lawsuits could be filed in Maryland courts—a fact that could potentially call into question a judge’s independence, integrity and impartiality.”
• “Raphael Santini, president of the MSBA, said the ethics committee’s opinion addresses a limited issue and has a narrow application.”
• “‘We respect the opinion of the Judicial Ethics Committee, and it should be observed in this narrow application by all members of our profession,’ Santini said in a statement on behalf of the MSBA. ‘We will continue to welcome judicial participation in a wide variety of MSBA activities, including continuing legal education, events, leadership and more as allowed under this opinion and prior opinions.'”

“Big Law’s Peril From Trump Orders Is Shown in Court Filings” —

• “WilmerHale and Jenner & Block laid bare the existential risks Donald Trump’s orders pose as the law firms rushed into court to stop the president. Trump’s directive to cut companies’ federal contracts for which WilmerHale has done work could affect 21 of the firm’s top 25 clients, the firm said in its March 28 lawsuit. The order threatens ‘the very viability of the firm’s business model,’ WilmerHale said.”
• “WilmerHale’s loss of clients who are contractors ‘would be a devastating blow,’ US District Judge Richard Leon said late on March 28. ‘This says nothing of the potential clients who may not even consider hiring’ the firm because of contract worries, he said.”
• “Leon temporarily blocked Trump’s order against WilmerHale in part, while in a separate courtroom US District Judge John Bates for now halted the directive against Jenner & Block. The blocking actions late on March 28 follow Perkins Coie’s March 12 win of a temporary order stopping part of Trump’s directive against that firm.”
• “Despite the temporary wins, details about the orders in the March 28 lawsuits filed by WilmerHale and Jenner & Block show the devastation the directives threaten for the firms’ bottom lines. Together the two firms collected more than $2 billion in revenue in 2023, according to the American Lawyer.”
• “More than 40% of Jenner & Block’s revenue last year came from clients who are US contractors, subcontractors, or affiliates, the firm said in its lawsuit. ‘If we lost that business, or even a portion of it, it would be a serious threat to the firm’s financial health,’ firm chair Thomas Perrelli said in a court filing.”
• “The devastating effects spelled out in the firms’ lawsuits show why big law operations have been so quick to fight Trump’s orders. They also help explain why Paul Weiss and Skadden moved so fast to strike deals with the president.”
• “A key question going forward for law firms facing Trump’s ire is what clients prefer they do—and whether those customers will stand by them in a fight with the president.”
• “‘The critical question is how will the clients respond,’ said Jeffrey Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School. ‘It’s up to them in a certain way.'”
• “Trump’s orders targeting law firms cut to the heart of their operations by limiting lawyers’ access to federal buildings—access they need to do their jobs—and by discouraging companies with US contracts from using the firms’ services.”
• “WilmerHale showed how much is at stake by the lawyer it hired to battle Trump—Paul Clement, a conservative who is one of the top US Supreme Court litigators of this era.”
• “Jenner & Block said the portion of Trump’s order that restricts firm lawyers from accessing government buildings is particularly painful.”
• “Unlike many other law firms, nearly 90% of Jenner’s attorneys focus on litigation, the firm said in a court filing. It currently has around 540 active matters pending before US courts and agencies that require access to federal buildings and officials, Perrelli said.”
• “Part of the order barring Jenner’s lawyers from federal spaces is already being enforced, the firm said. The Justice Department told a firm client not to bring Jenner to an April 3 meeting.”
• “Clients are already asking about how the order will hurt the firm’s ability to attend future meetings with other government agencies, according to Jenner’s filing.”
• “‘Partners at the firm have spent hundreds of hours, collectively, speaking with clients about the order and its implications,’ said the firm, which is being represented by Cooley’s former litigation chair Michael Attanasio.”
• “Like WilmerHale, Jenner expressed concern over preserving the confidentiality of attorney-client relationships.”
• “‘I can understand the short-term capitulation,’ said Adam Badawi, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. ‘But you’re putting yourself under the thumb of this administration for the next four years.'”

“Appellate Standards: Inspiring Better Lawyering” —

• “Cynthia Feathers and Tammy Feman address five areas—client communications, conflicts of interests, issues and risks, appellate briefs, and oral arguments—in which the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services Revised Appellate Standards and Best Practices can help Family Court counsel bring their appellate practice to the next level.”
• “Appellate Standard 6 prioritizes the need for assigned appellate counsel to ensure that no conflict of interest exists and to move to be relieved when there is a possibility of a conflict. The Standard speaks about the need for offices to have a system in place to properly check conflicts (see Rule 1.10 [3] of the Rules of Prof. Conduct [‘A law firm shall *** maintain a system by which proposed engagements are checked against current and previous engagements…’]).”
• “However, even with an appropriate system in place, sometimes conflicts are not immediately discernible, especially in Family Court appeals. For example, in a mixed provider office, appellate counsel might first realize that a conflict exists upon reading the trial transcripts months after assignment on appeal.”
• “If the conflict involves a possible claim of ineffective assistance resulting from an error made by trial counsel from appellate counsel’s own office, rather than navigating a sticky situation as to whether appellate counsel may keep the case, making a motion to be relieved and for the assignment of new appellate counsel may be the safer course, Standard 6 observes.”
• “The presence of possible conflicts may be unclear in other situations as well. An actual conflict exists where an attorney has ‘divided and incompatible loyalties within the same matter necessarily preclusive of single-minded advocacy,’ whereas a potential conflict is one that may never be realized (People v Cortez, 22 NY3d 1061, 1068 [2014]). A conflict is often difficult to discern in a mixed provider office that previously handled a criminal or juvenile case involving one of the parties.”
• “If information from the prior proceeding is unknown to the appellate attorney, and the conflict is not immediately clear from the record, it might be appropriate for appellate counsel to keep the case. Similarly, where an attorney represented one sibling as an attorney for the child in a prior proceeding and represents multiple siblings on appeal, if the best interests of all the children are the same, appellate counsel is not necessarily conflicted.”
• “However, even in these uncertain circumstances, the client must receive conflict-free appellate representation. The conflict Standard suggests that the better approach in such situations is the safer route.”
• “When in doubt, to protect the client, file a motion to be relieved as assigned appellate counsel and for the assignment of new appellate counsel. The Standards are an excellent starting point in navigating these thorny conflict situations.”

“Does the prosecutor have an obligation to report defense counsel’s conflict of interest?” —

• “An AZ criminal defense counsel had a conflict of interest because he represented one of the defendants and, apparently unbeknownst to the defendants, also represented a government witness.”
• “The defendants moved to disqualify the prosecutor on the grounds that he knew about the conflict but didn’t insist on defense counsel’s withdrawal and also that he helped conceal the conflict from the court.”
• “The Court agreed with a Magistrate Report that the prosecutor violated various ‘ethical’ duties, but held that he didn’t have a ‘legal’ duty to report defense counsel’s conflict. The Court also found that the defendants had “blown [the issue] out of proportion” even though there was no prejudice. Motion to disqualify denied.”
• Read the decision: here.

And for those tracking the continued developments relating to recent Executive actions:

“Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks” —

• “The president issued a new order Tuesday [3/25] sanctioning yet another law firm, Jenner & Block. The result overall has been called an extraordinary threat to the constitutional rights of due process and legal representation, as well as a far weaker effort to challenge Trump’s actions in court than during his first term.”
• “President Donald Trump’s crackdown on lawyers is having a chilling effect on his opponents’ ability to defend themselves or challenge his actions in court, according to people who say they are struggling to find legal representation as a result of his challenges.”
• “Biden-era officials said they’re having trouble finding lawyers willing to defend them. The volunteers and small nonprofits forming the ground troops of the legal resistance to Trump administration actions say that the well-resourced law firms that once would have backed them are now steering clear. The result is an extraordinary threat to the fundamental constitutional rights of due process and legal representation, they said — and a far weaker effort to challenge Trump’s actions in court than during his first term.”
• “Legal scholars say no previous U.S. administration has taken such concerted action against the legal establishment, with Trump’s predecessors in both parties typically respecting the constitutionally enshrined tenet that everyone deserves effective representation in court and that lawyers cannot be targeted simply for the cases and clients they take on.”
• “In a statement, Jenner & Block noted the similarity to an order that ‘has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court’ and that they ‘will pursue all appropriate remedies.'”
  “Trump on Friday ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to expand the campaign beyond individual law firms by sanctioning lawyers who ‘engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation’ against his administration.”
• “Legal scholars say there is little precedent in modern U.S. history for Trump’s actions. But the president is following a playbook from other countries whose leaders have sought to undermine democratic systems and the rule of law, including Russia, Turkey and Hungary. Leaders in those countries have similarly attacked lawyers with the effect of hollowing out a pillar of justice systems to expand their power without violating existing laws. They have successfully used the strategy to blast away their political opposition and any effort to counter their actions through courts.”
• “‘It’s scary,’ said a former official in the administration of Joe Biden who has been pulled into Trump-era litigation and needed a lawyer as a result. The former official had lined up a pro bono lawyer from a major law firm that, the day after an executive order this month against the heavyweight law firm Perkins Coie, said that it had discovered a conflict of interest and dropped the person as a client.”
• “Five other firms said they had conflicts, the former official said, including one where ‘the partner called me livid, furious, saying that he’s not sure how much longer he’s going to stay there,’ the former official said, ‘because the leadership didn’t want to take the risk.'”
• “The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid further difficulties obtaining a lawyer.”
• “‘I don’t know how many people are going to end up having to pay a significant amount of money out of pocket to defend themselves for faithfully and ethically executing their public service jobs,’ the person said. ‘It’s really a wild situation to be in.'”
• “‘You need the legitimacy of law on your side at some level,’ said Scott Cummings, a law professor at the UCLA School of Law who has studied challenges to the legal establishment. ‘This is the autocratic legal idea of claiming a democratic mandate to attack the rule of law by using law to really erode institutional pillars that are supposed to check executive power.'”
• “Trump’s actions toward lawyers, Cummings said, have been ‘about disabling effective representation of anyone that Trump doesn’t like, and that is the beginning of the end of the adversarial system,’ in which both sides of a legal case have equal access to present their views in front of a judge.”

Former GC at Airbnb and former Justice Department prosecutor writes: “GCs Face Tough Choices When Trump Targets Their Outside Law Firm” —

• “There’s fear in Big Law right now over Trump’s moves against the legal profession, and indecision over how to respond. Capitulate, as Paul Weiss did just days after being targeted? Or fire back with a lawsuit, as Perkins Coie did. As an in-house lawyer or general counsel, you aren’t simply a spectator—you have your own significant decisions to make about how your legal department will get involved in the looming legal showdown.”
• “First, we increasingly will see law firms choose a side—there will be firms that actively seek to benefit from their ties to the Trump administration, those who intentionally shy away from the conflict, such as Paul Weiss, and those who fight.”
• “The answer to that question depends on your values, and your company’s values, and it requires a bigger discussion with your executive team and board. You have an obligation to your shareholders and other stakeholders, and supporting a firm that actively challenges the administration, or is targeted by the administration, carries risk.”
• “If your business depends on federal contracts or cultivating relationships with the federal government, your choice of counsel increasingly may take on great significance. How much risk are you willing to take to stand with a law firm you want to work with? Can your firm be effective if they can’t enter a federal building, or even engage with federal employees?”
• “You may respect the firm’s courage and detest the idea of working with another firm whose values aren’t aligned with your personal beliefs. But you also must consider how much pain your business will endure to do what feels like the right thing, and whether your first-choice counsel can get the work done in this environment—you should get internal alignment when making this kind of call.”
• “And there’s a bigger set of questions around your voice. Do you use your position as a legal leader to speak up about what you’re seeing? Do you work through associations, or form them, to express your views on what’s happening to the rule of law—there’s some level of safety in numbers, and the opportunity to have greater impact with a larger group, a louder chorus.”
• “Trump’s efforts to intimidate lawyers become more challenging with each additional lawyer who speaks up. Again, this is a discussion that in-house legal leaders should have with the rest of the executive team—they should understand that as an attorney, you have a higher obligation to uphold the Constitution and support the rule of law. There may be consequences to taking a public stand, and not every company will be supportive. But silence has a price too.”
• “There always will be lawyers willing to step up and take on the administration. Trump’s biggest challenge in his war on the law are the judges, who have the power and independence to at least slow down his agenda—and Trump doesn’t like it.”
• “We’re headed for a series of showdowns around the power of the president, and the forum will likely be the US Supreme Court for many of them… Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best: ‘In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.’ There’s a bigger picture here, a long-term view, and the world will have a long memory about how each company, each law firm, each attorney responded when it was hard to do the right thing.”

Stacie Rosenzweig of the Ethicking blog writes: “Lawyering in a Time of Lawlessness (And Also Probably Cholera)” —

• “I write a snark blog. Snark blogs are better suited to schadenfreude-type grimness and not existential grimness. Things have taken an existentially grim turn, folks. But here we are. It’s a multi-alarm fire this time.”
• “Since I last wrote about this subject, my nerd association put out a statement condemning the current administration’s attack on lawyers., in response to executive orders purporting to revoke security clearances and restrict lawyers’ ability to practice, against Covington & Burling, but Perkins Coie. After the APRL statement, the administration issued a similar order against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul, Weiss). “
• “Today, however, the administration announced that Paul, Weiss has capitulated to its demands. As reported by The Hill:”
• “I am not prone to hyperbole or overreaction, so when I say ~this is an existential threat to law practice~ I mean what I say. And this is an existential threat to law practice. And democracy. “
• “In a democracy, the government should not be dictating what clients or causes private law firms work for. It should not be shaking down these firms, or the clients of these firms, for political gain (or any other reason). If an administration has a problem with a particular lawyer or law firm based on actual conduct or misconduct, there are processes in place to address that. It should not be doing any of this.”
• “This is also not the time for law firms to be buckling. These orders are likely unconstitutional. Perkins Coie has already won an injunction. How is any client going to trust that a firm that agrees to these terms is going to be working for their best interests and not the administration’s? How is any client going to trust that their confidences are being kept, if the administration seeks proof of compliance? How is Paul, Weiss exercising its professional independence, as required? Are associates going to be conscripted into furthering an agenda they find repugnant? Being willing to work many, many hours a week on pharmaceutical mergers or whatever does not mean being willing to work on criminalizing gender transitions or disappearing people because they’re fans of Real Madrid who happen to be brown. “
• “This is deeply, deeply personal to me. As you may know, when I do not have my Ethicking hat on (and sometimes, even when I do) I have my Election Law hat on. I’ve tried to not let that part of my practice bleed into this blog, but now it’s inevitable. When I represent lawyers and others, I represent a broad spectrum of clients, without regard to political affiliation. When I have my Election Law hat on (or, for those of you who know me on Facebook, my Election Lawyer Barbie profile picture up), I represent Democrats. I co-counseled with Perkins Coie for a solid year, and they are some of the smartest, most dedicated lawyers I know. I make no secret of any of this (except what I need to keep secret, of course). “
• “I don’t wish to represent Republicans in election matters, and it would be a conflict of interest for me to do so—in many cases, a concurrent conflict. Beyond that, lawyers are allowed to decline representation if our personal interests would materially limit our ability to work with their client—in fact, we are required to do so if we don’t think we could do the work adequately or if our clients won’t give informed consent to waive the conflict. I sure as hell do not believe I could appropriately represent a candidate whose views and policies I strenuously oppose, in an election setting, where the fruits of my labor would be electing a candidate whose views and policies I strenuously oppose. ”
  “Does the president expect us to violate our own oaths, our professional independence, our personal morals, our First Amendment rights so…we don’t hurt his feelings? Is this where we are? “

“Trump Targets Jenner & Block Via Clients, Widening Big Law Fight” —

• “President Donald Trump’s new executive order against Jenner & Block threatens the firm’s relationship with a top client, aerospace and defense company General Dynamics.”
• “Trump on Tuesday [3/25] made Jenner the fourth major law firm hit for ties to lawyers he considers enemies. The president ordered agencies to restrict firm employees from accessing US buildings, strip lawyers’ security clearances, and investigate diversity hiring practices. He also directed agencies to terminate government contracts with Jenner clients.”
• “General Dynamics has received $102.8 billion in unclassified federal contracts since start of fiscal year 2021, according to a Bloomberg Government database. The company, whose ties to Jenner span more than half a century, this year won a contract worth more than $43 million from the Health and Human Services Department.”
• “The new order against Jenner singles out former firm partner Andrew Weissmann. The ex-Justice Department official was a top member of Robert Mueller’s special counsel team who had a lead role in securing the convictions of Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.”
• “In a March 14 speech at the Justice Department, Trump called Weissmann ‘scum.'”
• “Jenner and Block said in a statement Tuesday: ‘We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients’ interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies.'”
• “Weissmann on Monday criticized the Paul Weiss deal with Trump, in which the firm agreed to spend $40 million in pro bono legal services to support administration goals.”
  “‘The right response is not appeasement or silence,’ Weissmann wrote in a social media post. ‘Capitulation serves as a clarion call to further such improper action by this administration.'”
  Clients Threatened”
• “Jenner & Block is one of the 100 highest-grossing law firms in the country with $582 million in revenue in 2023, according to the American Lawyer.”
• “Trump’s order states that Jenner & Block ‘is yet another law firm that has abandoned the profession’s highest ideals, condoned partisan ‘lawfare,’ and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.'”

“Paul Weiss Alumni Call Trump Agreement ‘Craven Surrender’” —

• “About 90 Paul Weiss former associates signed their names to a letter Monday [3/24] criticizing chairman Brad Karp’s deal with the Trump administration.”
• “‘Instead of a ringing defense of the values of democracy, we witnessed a craven surrender to, and thus complicity in, what is perhaps the gravest threat to the independence of the legal profession since at least the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy,’ the associates said.”
• “A representative for Paul Weiss said the firm has more than 4,100 living alumni. Karp, in a firmwide letter over the weekend, said it was ‘very likely’ Paul Weiss couldn’t survive a protracted dispute with the Trump presidency.”
• “The associates in their letter called on the firm to issue an ‘unambiguous statement’ that it adheres to principles essential to its mission and that it rejects the administration’s attacks on courts and the rule of law.”
• “Trump, when asked at the White House on Monday about his law firm executive orders, said others want to settle. ‘I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves,’ he said.”

“New York Times: To the Editor” —

• “My grandfather Louis S. Weiss was a founding partner of Paul, Weiss. My father, Louis H. Pollak (who President Trump would have classified as a “radical left lunatic”), was a federal judge, civil rights advocate and constitutional law expert who worked briefly at that firm. Both of these lawyers would have been horrified by Brad Karp’s capitulation to the Trump administration. They might even have called the $40 million deal a payoff — and a spineless one at that. — Sally Pollak,Burlington, Vt.”

“Paul Weiss Associates, It’s Time to Reflect on Why You’re Lawyers” —

• “UW School of Law’s Eric Schnapper says Paul Weiss’ early-career lawyers must decide whether the firm’s deal with the Trump administration is compatible with their reasons for entering the profession. Now would be a good time to try to remember why you went to law school in the first place.”
• “Perhaps your goal was always to work for a premier corporate law firm. In that case, things are going well—Paul Weiss is one of the nation’s great firms. You have a chance to represent some of the bluest blue-chip corporations, to work on deals of astounding financial importance, and to bask in the well-deserved prestige of your office. The hours may be long—OK, very long—but the pay is lavish.”
• “If that was the only reason you went to law school, you can stop reading this letter and get back to running up those billable hours.”
• “But maybe you were hoping that by going to law school, you would have a chance to work for a conservative president, at the Department of Justice, getting the opportunity to use the power of the federal government to reduce regulation and eliminate the deep state. If you graduated from law school when there was a Democrat in the White House, that timing was inopportune.”
• “If so, the firm’s leaders have saved the day by making a deal with the administration that would rescind the order in exchange for legal services to help advance the administration’s goals—which included allowing an audit of the firm’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.”
• “You could be among the many associates assigned to do legal work in support of the Trump administration. Perhaps you can do something on behalf of veterans (though you likely won’t be helping reinstate the more than 1,000 laid-off employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs). Or you might have an opportunity to write a brief in support of the deportation of people with whose views you (and quite possibly I) strongly disagree. You’re in the right place at the right time.”
• “Of course, there’s a third possibility. You might have gone to law school because you believed in the rule of law and were confident that it applied to everyone, from immigrants to the US president. You might have thought that you could use your legal training to help those less fortunate than yourself.”
• “You may also have hoped that if a day ever came when government power was being gravely abused, you would be able to defend—and have the courage to represent—the victims of that governmental misconduct. At least you were sure that you wouldn’t work for a firm which, if push came to shove, would put profit ahead of principle.”
• “If that is why you went to law school, you may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Push indeed came to shove, and Paul Weiss decided not to stand up, alongside Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling, to reprisals from Trump. The regime Paul Weiss is now attempting to placate will demand more tribute, obeisance, and self-censorship.”
• “There will come a day when you are at a law school reunion, talking with your former classmates about what each of you did with your careers and your lives. Some will boast about how they ascended to partnerships at prominent firms, describing their lovely co-ops or houses, and their vacations on Nantucket. Most of your classmates will at least be able to say they didn’t work at a firm that acquiesced to threats and retribution by the Trump administration, smoothing the path to retaliation against others.”
• “There might be a few former classmates who will tell a far different story—of the federal worker whose job they saved, of the agency or program whose dismantlement they helped prevent, of the hospital still open—because of the manner in which they used their legal education.”
• “Now would be a good time to decide who you want to be at that reunion.”

“Trump targeted 20 of the biggest law firms over their diversity programs. A GOP favorite is missing from the list” —

• “In the latest salvo, Andrea Lucas, the newly minted acting chair of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sent letters to 20 of the country’s most prominent big law firms with detailed questions about their diversity programs.”
• “One law firm absent from the target list is Jones Day. Jones Day has been closely intertwined with Trump’s White House. The firm represented Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns and the Republican National Committee in 2024.”
• “Jones Day also appears to have many of the same diversity programs as the 20 law firms Lucas contacted.”
• “Under the header of ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,’ a 2024 Jones Day brochure on the firm’s diversity touts how it ‘aggressively pursues’ hiring and career development of lawyers from ‘historically underrepresented backgrounds.'”
• “Every year, Jones Day hosts a ‘Diversity Conference’ for first-year law students. This year’s is scheduled to take place in April in Atlanta, Georgia, according to its website.”
  “The firm also has affinity groups that ‘celebrate diversity within our organization,’ including chapters for Black, Hispanic, and LGBTQ+ lawyers.”
• “A Jones Day representative didn’t respond to requests for comment.”
• “The rank-and-file of Jones Day predominantly supports Democrats. In the 2024 election, its employees donated five times as much money to Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign compared to Trump’s, according to Federal Elections Committee data compiled by Open Secrets.”
• “Don McGahn, a prominent Jones Day lawyer, served as White House counsel during Trump’s first term, leading the selection of federal court appointments. And the firm’s attorneys have continued to find their way to powerful positions in the second Trump administration.”
• “Other elite Trump-friendly firms, like Sullivan & Cromwell, which agreed to appeal his Manhattan criminal conviction, and Troutman Pepper Locke, which represented Trump family members in the New York Attorney General’s civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization, are also missing from the EEOC list.”
• “Earlier this month, the president of the American Bar Association criticized ‘a clear and disconcerting pattern’ where Trump targeted lawyers representing ‘parties the administration does not like’ to intimidate critics.”
• “‘Clients have the right to have access to their lawyer without interference by the government,’ William R. Bay said in a statement. ‘Lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duty without fear of retribution.'”

“This Law Firm Stood Up to Government Intimidation — and Came Out on Top” —

• “One afternoon in the early 1950s, the lawyer Paul Porter was walking through his private club in Washington when a fellow member accosted him. Porter’s firm, Arnold, Fortas & Porter, was only a few years old, but it was already well known around the capital for representing federal employees accused of disloyalty by the Truman administration — as many as 200 a year, almost all pro bono. It was a risk that few other firms were willing to take at the height of the Red Scare.”
• “‘Paul, I understand your firm is engaged in defending communists and homosexuals,’ the man sneered.”
• “‘That’s right,’ Porter shot back, then deadpanned: ‘What can I do for you?'”
• “In later years, this encounter, or some version of it, became part of the lore around Arnold, Fortas & Porter. It spoke to the firm’s eager embrace of civil-liberties cases in the face of mounting government intrusion into the private lives of millions of its employees, as well as a legal community that overwhelmingly shrank from the moment, lest it lose clients and gain the unwanted attention of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.”
• “Despite the risks, taking on loyalty cases did not doom Arnold, Fortas & Porter. It grew steadily, and today, under the official name of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, it is one of the largest firms in the world, with over 1,000 lawyers based in six countries. If anything, standing up to the Red Scare earned it a reputation for fearlessness, while costing little in the way of lost business — though at least one client, Sun Oil, is said to have dropped the firm because of its civil-liberties activism.”
• “For that reason, some have questioned the purity of Arnold, Porter, & Fortas’s motives. Perhaps it was in part a marketing gimmick. But if so, it was a huge risk, one that the three highly regarded founders did not need to take. And if it was such a great gimmick, why was Arnold, Fortas & Porter the only one to try it?”
• “It may be unfair to hold up the Red Scare experience of Arnold, Fortas & Porter as a model for today’s firms, which may face penalties worse than lost clients. But it is also worth recognizing that the fledgling firm, confronted with a choice between following the crowd and speaking up, took the difficult route. And it paid off in a reputation that outlasted the government’s witch hunt.”
• “‘We were scared,’ Fortas said, years later. ‘But on the other hand, what was there to be done?'”

“Bankruptcy Court Can Convert a Case Due to a Conflict of Interest, Even in a Subchapter V” —

• “In In re Ghatanfard, No. 24-CV-2858 (CS), 1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York converting a debtor’s Subchapter V case to a Chapter 7 case. In particular, the district court found that the bankruptcy court’s decision to convert was not an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the serious conflicts of interest that existed between the debtor and the potential target of significant fraudulent transfer claims held by the debtor’s estate.”
• “In 2017, former restaurant worker Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of himself and his fellow employees (the class action creditors), sued his former employer, Laura Christy Midtown LLC (Laura Christy) and its owner, David Ghatanfard (Ghatanfard). On June 22, 2022, Zivkovic was awarded $650,000 in punitive and compensatory damages for his individual claims and the class action creditors were awarded $4.5 million in damages.”
• “In their post-judgment collection efforts, the class action creditors discovered that Ghatanfard had rendered himself insolvent as a result of various transactions and transfers to his ‘life partner,’ Rosey Kalayjian, with whom he lived and shared a bank account, and who has worked in several restaurants owned by him. In particular, the class action creditors discovered that Ghatanfard transferred to Kalayjian the sum of: $1.2 million from the sale of a home he owned; $675,000 he had received from Laura Christy; $600,000 from the sale of another restaurant; and $1.4 million from the refinancing of another one of his houses located in Southampton, New York. In addition, Ghatanfard also recorded a deed transferring title to the Southampton home from his individual ownership to a joint ownership with Kalayjian. Furthermore, right before the class action judgment was entered, Ghatanfard transferred to Kalayjian 90% of his ownership in a limited liability company called Oak Grove Road LLC that owned a 50% stake in Valbella at the Park LLC.”
• “On Feb. 12, 2024, Ghatanfard filed his Subchapter V plan of reorganization, in which he proposed to fund the plan by paying $1,700 monthly payments along with a lump sum payment of $500,000 to be obtained from Kalayjian in settlement of any and all claims against her, including, without limitation, the fraudulent transfer claims.”
• “On April 11, 2024, after oral argument on the motion to convert, the bankruptcy court entered an order converting the case, stating that it had found cause for dismissal or conversion, including the Ghatanfard’s conflicts of interest in pursuing potential fraudulent transfer claims and other claims of the estate to his ‘life partner’ Kalayjian. Given the class action creditors’ opposition to expanding the powers of the Subchapter V trustee, a decision in which the bankruptcy court expressed disappointment in since with their consent, the Subchapter V trustee would have had the power to pursue avoidance actions, the bankruptcy court concluded that conversion to Chapter 7 was the only appropriate remedy. Ghatanfard filed a notice of appeal on April 12, 2024.”
• “Initially, the district court found that it had standing to hear the appeal in light of a Chapter 7 trustee having already been appointed in the bankruptcy case during the pendency of the appeal. The district court denied Ghatanfard’s argument that he was an ‘aggrieved’ person because he has stage IV cancer, had been denied confirmation of his Subchapter V plan, and was forced to spend ‘what could be his final days’ in bankruptcy and litigation involving his longtime partner. However, rather than directly addressing whether the debtor had standing, the district court turned to the merits of the case.”
• “Upon review, the district court’s standard of review was under an abuse of discretion standard and, as such, found that the bankruptcy court’s decision to convert the case due to the significant conflicts of interest was not a reversible error, despite the fact that the bankruptcy court did not list any of the additional factors under Section 1104 of the Bankruptcy Code for converting the case. In point of fact, the district court found that there clearly was cause for conversion due to the ‘irreconcilable conflict of interest in terms of assessing where various assets had gone and whether they were appropriately transferred from Ghatanfard to other parties,’ and that conversion to Chapter 7 would allow for a trustee with ‘both the ability to investigate and the ability to act’ as opposed to the limited powers of a Subchapter V trustee.”
• “The district court also rejected Ghatanfard’s argument that it was reversible error for the bankruptcy court to convert the case rather than expand the powers of the Subchapter V trustee. In particular, Ghatanfard argued that the bankruptcy court committed reversible error in converting his case instead of expanding the Subchapter V trustee’s powers. As noted by the district court, under Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, a court is not required to expand the Subchapter V trustee’s powers. Furthermore, expansion of the Subchapter V trustee’s powers, in this case, would have only permitted the Subchapter V trustee to investigate and report on the debtor’s pre-petition actions and transfers, but, absent creditor consent, the Subchapter V trustee (unlike a Chapter 7 trustee) lacked standing to bring the requisite avoidance actions against Kalayjian.”
• “As a consequence, the district court found that the bankruptcy court’s decision that the expansion of the Subchapter V trustee’s powers would be insufficient in light of the facts and circumstances of the case was not an abuse of discretion.”

“Law firm Simpson Thacher agrees to UK fine over money laundering rule breaches” —

• “U.S. law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett was fined 300,000 pounds ($389,069) on Wednesday over breaches of anti-money laundering rules at its London office.”
  The firm agreed to a settlement with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which regulates solicitors in England and Wales, under which Simpson Thacher will also pay 62,000 pounds towards the SRA’s legal costs.”
• “Simpson Thacher admitted failing to have a firm-wide risk assessment between June 2017 and March 2020, as required by British money laundering regulations.”
  It also accepted not having a fully-compliant firm-wide risk assessment from March 2020 until February 2023, after the SRA announced it was bringing a regulatory case in August.”
  The SRA did not allege Simpson Thacher’s admitted breaches led to any money laundering, but the regulator said in court filings that they created ‘an increased risk of money laundering’.”
• “A spokesperson for Simpson Thacher said in a statement that the firm’s London office ‘acknowledges and regrets certain historic shortcomings in some of our UK AML (anti-money laundering) written policies’.”
• “An SRA spokesperson said in a statement: ‘Money laundering is not a victimless crime and can have detrimental effects on many, many people. Solicitors have an important role to play in keeping the profits of crime out of the profession and the wider UK economy.'”
• “Simpson Thacher is the latest major law firm to face disciplinary action over alleged breaches of money laundering regulations.”
  “Global law firm Clyde & Co was last year fined 500,000 pounds after admitting multiple breaches of money laundering regulations relating to a long-standing client.”
• “The SRA’s prosecution of fellow global firm Dentons was dismissed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in March. But that decision was overturned on appeal on Tuesday and the SRA’s case was sent back to the tribunal.”

“SXSW Privacy Discussion: The Rising Risks Lawyers Can’t Ignore” —

• “On Friday afternoon at SXSW, Meredith Whittaker, CEO of Signal, painted a sobering and downright alarming picture of the modern privacy landscape. Whittaker argued that the world today is more surveilled than ever before, with a handful of corporations and governments wielding unprecedented access to our personal data. Her comments highlighted the risks that everyone — but especially lawyers, given our duty of confidentiality — need to take seriously.”
• “Whittaker noted that privacy is not a luxury; it is a fundamental condition for free thought, secure relationships, and democratic engagement. Yet, we live in an era where every message, search query, and interaction is recorded, stored, and could potentially be weaponized against us. The sheer volume of data collected by companies like Google, Meta, and telecommunications providers creates vast vulnerabilities. Whether through government subpoenas, corporate data sales, or hacking incidents, this information is accessible in ways many of us just don’t fully appreciate.”
• “To illustrate her point, Whittaker posed a chilling hypothetical that quieted the room: Every single message you’ve ever sent in your life is suddenly on a database and a link just got sent to everyone you know. That’s your boss, that’s your best friend, that’s your dad’s best friend, that’s the weird guy who comes to your Thanksgiving. That’s everyone you know, and they click on that link, and they can access that database. And there’s a little AI bot that’s like appended onto that database so they can quickly summarize everything in that database, search their name. Search that one time you told that weird lie because you hadn’t had coffee, searched that time you taught shit on your best friend because you were in a weird place…Search that message to your doctor? Search that thing you sent to your colleague that was really mean about your other colleagues, search your prescription information. Search the time you talk to a union organizer, search the time you reported corruption at your workplace with journalists, all of that is on there.”
• “As large language models and AI become more powerful, it will become even easier for an AI bot to summarize and search everything, exposing your personal, professional, and even legal conversations. Whittaker says this is not science fiction; it reflects today’s reality.”
• “Why Lawyers Should Care. For lawyers, the implications of these privacy risks are particularly critical. Attorney-client privilege and confidentiality are not just ethical obligations, they form the very basis of attorney client relationships. Lawyers need to be aware of and comply with their ethical duty to protect “information relating to the representation of a client.” They also need to understand and satisfy the ethical obligation to understand the risks and benefits of technology under the rules of professional responsibility. At a minimum, these duties require lawyers to be informed of the threats technology poses to client confidentiality.”
• “Moreover, both lawyers and clients need to be secure in the knowledge that their conversations are protected and not easily accessible to others. Lawyers also need to be prepared to advise clients on privacy risks and how to mitigate them.”
• “Metadata Matters: Even when message content is encrypted, metadata — who you talk to, when, and how often — can reveal critical details. As Whittaker noted, metadata to can be used to track relationships, map influence networks, and uncover confidential activities. In legal matters, this could expose privileged consultations, witness communications, or legal strategies.”
• “Given these risks, lawyers and legal professionals should think through their approach to digital communications. Steps to consider include:
  • Limiting the Use of Commercial Messaging Apps: Mainstream platforms like WhatsApp, iMessage, and Telegram may offer some encryption, but they still collect metadata and, in some cases, retain message content. Lawyers should avoid discussing sensitive matters on these apps.
  • Implementing Secure Communication Protocols: Law firms and legal departments should prioritize end-to-end encryption tools that minimize data collection and do not store metadata.
  • Educating Clients on Privacy Risks: Confidentiality doesn’t just depend on lawyers; clients also need to understand the risks of discussing legal matters on insecure channels both when talking to their lawyers and in their day-to-day business activities.
  • Challenging Data Retention Policies: Many tech companies store years’ worth of messages, call logs, and search history. Lawyers should advocate for stricter data retention limits and ensure their own firms do not store unnecessary digital records that could later be subpoenaed or hacked.”

“Avoiding Legal Ethics Minefields in Parallel Investigations” —

• “If recent events are any indication, the use of parallel investigations in the U.S. is expected to widen, and with it, the need for attorneys to navigate ethics quagmires.”
• “The breadth of such investigations has expanded in recent years to include, for example, educational institutions hauled before Congress to testify about campus antisemitism. Now, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs are expected to be under scrutiny by Congress and the administration.”
• “William J. Murphy and Catherine S. Duval, leaders of Zuckerman Spaeder’s Legal Profession and Ethics practice, who represent clients in parallel investigations, say they expect that scope to continue to broaden, given the political and governmental climates. That means increased pressure on lawyers who counsel clients in simultaneous criminal, civil, congressional, regulatory and administrative matters.”
• “As Murphy explains, it’s like looking around the corner to figure out whether the course taken in one setting will ‘blow up in a way that’s going to harm your client in some future setting that you may not yet anticipate… Things that the lawyers might ordinarily think were protected by privilege or by their work product may not be. Or a court may rule that the privilege no longer applies.'”
• “One unique challenge is that Congress does not recognize attorney-client privilege. ‘If you are producing something to Congress, they will press for material that would not be discoverable in another context. But once it is produced somewhere, that could vitiate the privilege protection somewhere else,’ says Duval.”
• “‘Attorneys have ethical and other obligations to preserve their clients’ secrets and privileges. But you’ve got a congressional entity saying that they trump that,’ she adds.”
• “Another challenge is confidentiality, so knowing the ground rules is crucial. ‘There are entities that won’t guarantee confidential treatment,’ and may even post the materials at issue to a public website, Duval says.”
• “Furthermore, when it comes to appealing an order to produce documents, the likelihood of success varies, according to Murphy. In some jurisdictions, ‘someone has to be held in contempt and refuse to comply with the order’ to make it appealable, he says.”

“Payday Lender Gets Appeal On Lawyer’s Blackmail Conflict” —

• “The Second Circuit has decided to let a former payday lending executive, now incarcerated on charges that he ran a fraudulent $2 billion lending scheme, move ahead with a new appeal after hearing that his trial counsel faced blackmail from another client.”
• “A circuit panel found Tuesday that ex-payday exec Scott Tucker argues convincingly that his appointed lead trial lawyer, Lee Alan Ginsberg, faced a conflict when he cooperated during Tucker’s trial with prosecutors from the Southern District of New York in an unrelated blackmail case.”
• “‘Specifically,’ the panel said, ‘the COA is granted as to the following issue only: Whether an unwaivable conflict was presented where petitioner’s appointed trial counsel engaged in a proffer session with members of the same U.S. Attorney’s Office that was prosecuting petitioner, about two weeks into petitioner’s trial, because trial counsel faced potential criminal exposure for matters not related to the charges against petitioner, and the district court did not appoint petitioner independent counsel for the Curcio hearing.'”
• “A Curcio hearing is a proceeding aimed at ensuring that a client understands his attorney’s potential conflicts of interest.”
  “Tucker’s current lawyer, Benjamin Silverman, told Law360 in an email that he and his client are grateful that the court ‘is taking seriously what happened to Scott Tucker’ and the errors that compromised his trial.”
• “‘Last month, the government presented only procedural defenses without even attempting to defend what happened at the trial in 2017,’ Silverman wrote. ‘The more that comes to light, the clearer it becomes that the convictions must be vacated.'”
• “But filings that weren’t seen during the first appeal show that lead trial counsel Ginsberg during the trial was cooperating with SDNY prosecutors in the blackmail case.”
• “‘I was blackmailed and defrauded by a former client,’ a Ginsberg affidavit said.”
• “That wrinkle emerged in the middle of Tucker’s trial and prompted a semi-secret conflicts hearing called by Judge Castel on Sept. 25, 2017, during which, according to March 4 statements, Tucker waived any conflict and elected to keep Ginsberg as his attorney and go forward.”
• “The blackmail had nothing to do with Tucker or his case, but it put Ginsberg in the uncomfortable position of working with prosecutors from the same office that was seeking to convict his client, according to filings.”
• “Judge Castel, citing myriad factors, concluded in an opinion last year that the blackmail case did not cause Tucker sufficient prejudice as to allow him a second shot in the circuit.”
• “But that didn’t seem to sit well Tuesday with Judge Merriam, who noted that no independent conflicts lawyer was on hand to advise Tucker during his long-ago Curcio hearing.”
• “Judge Merriam also wondered whether other members of Tucker’s team, including Ginsberg’s trial co-counsel Beverly Van Ness — who also represented Tucker during his first appeal — were also conflicted.”
• “Judge Merriam called it a ‘Catch-22’ in which Tucker’s appellate lawyer was ‘potentially not in a position to raise the argument that he now wishes to raise’ either because of incomplete knowledge of the blackmail issue or the fact that she also was on the trial team.”

“Law firm targeted by Trump could have been ‘destroyed,’ chairman says in explaining deal with Trump” —

• “The chairman of a prominent law firm who cut a deal with President Donald Trump last week to avert the consequences of a White House executive order told colleagues in an email Sunday that he did so because the order ‘could easily have destroyed our firm’ and put it out of business.”
• “The message from Brad Karp offers the most detailed public explanation yet about the decision to make significant concessions to the White House in the face of an executive order that targeted his firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Garrison & Wharton.”
• “The resolution triggered an intense backlash within the legal community, with lawyers criticizing the firm for capitulating to Trump rather than standing up to him, particularly at a time when he’s using the power of the presidency to threaten the livelihoods of attorneys and companies he believes have crossed him. The deal also reinforced Trump’s recent success in extracting concessions from a broad swath of targets, in both academia and private industry, who have opted to compromise rather than fight.”
• “In an email to Paul Weiss employees obtained by The Associated Press, Karp described the order as having presented an ‘existential crisis’ for the firm. He said it was very likely the firm would not have survived a protracted fight with the Trump administration.”
• “‘The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm,’ Karp wrote. ‘It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.'”
• “Karp wrote that the firm was initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, something another law firm targeted with a Trump executive order, Perkins Coie, has done. Even as a team of attorneys prepared a complaint, he said, ‘it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration.'”
• “He also said that the support he hoped the firm would receive from other law firms never materialized.”
• “‘Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,’ he wrote.”
• “Against that backdrop, when the firm learned that the administration might be willing to cut a deal, it sought to do so and negotiated a settlement in a ‘matter of days.'”
• “‘I know many of you are uncomfortable that we entered into any sort of resolution at all. That is completely understandable,’ Karp wrote to his colleagues, adding that ‘there was no right answer to the predicament in which we found ourselves.'”
• “He added: ‘It is very easy for commentators to judge our actions from the sidelines. But no one in the wider world can appreciate how stressful it is to confront an executive order like this until one is directed at you.'”

“Keker, Van Nest & Peters Responds to Presidential Memo ‘Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court’” —

• “Trump’s new memo underscores how far removed this President, Attorney General and Administration are from our nation’s Constitution and bedrock values. Our liberties depend on lawyers’ willingness to represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the Federal Government. An attack on lawyers who perform this work is inexcusable and despicable.”
• “Our profession owes every client zealous legal representation without fear of retribution, regardless of their political affiliation or ability to pay.”
• “We encourage law firm leaders to sign on to an amicus effort in support of Perkins Coie’s challenge to the Administration’s executive order targeting the firm, and to resist the Administration’s erosion of the rule of law.”

“Law Firm Bends in Face of Trump Demands” —

• “President Trump and the head of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP have reached a deal under which Mr. Trump will drop the executive order he leveled against the firm, Mr. Trump said on Thursday. [3/20]”
• “In the deal, Mr. Trump said, the firm agreed to a series of commitments, including to represent clients no matter their political affiliation and contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump has championed, including ‘the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.'”
• “It’s unclear how the money will be used to help the task force. The firm, Mr. Trump said, also agreed to conduct an audit to ensure its hiring practices are merit based ‘and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.'”
• “The deal materialized after the head of the firm, Brad Karp, went to the White House this week and had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Trump to discuss a resolution. Members of the legal profession said in interviews that they were surprised by the deal, as it appears as if the firm — which is dominated by Democrats and has long prided itself in being at the forefront of the fight against the government for civil rights — was capitulating to Mr. Trump over an executive order that is likely illegal.”
• “The agreement is a significant development in the retribution campaign Mr. Trump has opened against several top law firms that he sees as having supported efforts to help his opponents or unfairly prosecute him. And it is the latest demonstration of how Mr. Trump has used his power to extract concessions or public signs of support for his agenda from corporate leaders, news organizations and others since his election victory in November.”
• “The White House said that Mr. Karp had acknowledged ‘wrongdoing’ by one of the firm’s former partners, Mark F. Pomerantz. Mr. Pomerantz had tried to build a criminal case against Mr. Trump several years ago while working at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. It was not clear what wrongdoing Mr. Trump was referring to.”
• “‘The president is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul, Weiss Chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice.'”
• “Thursday’s deal applies only to the executive order against Paul, Weiss. It’s not clear what effect, if any, it will have on the orders targeting other firms or whether it will lead Mr. Trump to back off his stated intention to go after more of them.”

“‘Why Are You Remaining Silent?’ Some Clients Expect Big Law Public Response on Executive Actions” —

• “Most Big Law firms, in keeping silent about the Trump administration’s actions against law firms, are concerned they could harm their clients or business if they were to speak publicly against the government. But some general counsel lawyers say they want their outside counsel to speak up.”
• “Some Big Law clients are going so far as to indicate that they’re willing to vote with their dollars and shift business around to those who speak out against the Trump administration, according to interviews with corporate counsel and several LinkedIn posts by general counsel.”
• “‘I’m carefully watching the reactions of various firms, or the lack thereof, and I feel it’s my duty to vote with my pocketbook in terms of where I want to send my business in the future,’ a clothing company GC said in an interview.
• “A medical company chief legal officer said in an interview, ‘If there ends up being a split where some firms are vocal and others aren’t, I will absolutely use that in my purchasing or vendor decisions. I will want a firm that is aligned with my values.’ The CLO expressed disappointment that firms thus far have remained silent. ‘As soon as the executive order on Perkins Coie came out, within a half hour, I emailed every law firm that I pay currently and the law firm I used to work at and a couple others where I have close contacts just to say that I expect you to be fighting this swift and strong.'”
• “The medical CLO expressed frustration at what they felt was an attempt to use the amicus brief as a kind of smokescreen to disguise firms’ lack of response. ‘I’m talking to them, and they’re saying wishy-washy things like ‘we’re reviewing our options’ and ‘there are documents like an amicus brief being circulated’ but no one will make any public statement or make any kind of stand because they’re keeping their options open, which includes just rolling over,’ the CLO said. ‘Their cowering in the corner is working at a disservice to them. It’s showing how they’re willing to bend a knee as soon as their revenue is threatened.'”
• “‘We’re up to three, and the silence is deafening,’ wrote a general counsel from a food production company. ‘Where is the outrage from their peer firms? This isn’t a partisan issue – these firms take on clients from both sides of the aisle, as well as clients with no affiliation at all.'”

“Ex-Cognizant Executive Rethinking Paul Weiss After Trump Deal” —

• “Former Cognizant Technology Solutions executive Steven Schwartz appears to be rethinking his decision to fire Paul Weiss now that President Donald Trump has rescinded an executive order that took aim at the firm.”
• “Lawyers from Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP had been defending Schwartz on foreign bribery charges since 2018. But the lawyers filed a motion to withdraw March 19, saying Schwartz was terminating them in response to Trump’s March 14 executive order targeting the law firm.”
• “Schwartz ‘is considering and consulting with counsel regarding the announcement last night that the President has rescinded the March 14, 2025 Executive Order concerning Paul Weiss,’ his new lawyers with Sullivan & Cromwell LLP said in a Friday letter to Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the US District Court for the District of New Jersey.”
• “They said they will be prepared to discuss is views ‘on the impact of that decision on Paul Weiss’s motion to withdraw and on the trial date for this matter’ at a conference March 24.”

“Lawyers Must Not Stay Quiet in Face of Trump Attack on Firms” —

• “As the dean of two major law schools, I always told first-year students about the legal profession’s essential role in our democracy—and reminded them at graduation three years later. During the intervening years, our faculty worked to give future lawyers the tools they needed to serve this role effectively and responsibly.”
• “I often wondered how the message came across, and whether the students viewed the legal profession’s claimed relationship to our democracy as pompous, self-serving hot air. The first two months of the Trump administration have quelled any doubts I may have had about the vital importance of that relationship.”
• “It’s no surprise the Trump administration has placed the ethos and values of the legal profession in its crosshairs. It started by eliminating many of the career lawyers at the Department of Justice, before moving on to axing the inspectors general at more than a dozen government agencies, overhauling the leadership of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps across the military, and removing the chief counsel for the IRS.”
• “Government lawyers are the first line of defense in preventing abusive, illegal actions by the government they serve. Former DOJ attorneys such as Danielle Sassoon, Kevin Driscoll, John Keller, Hagan Scotten, and Denise Cheung sounded the alarm by resigning rather than executing the actions Trump officials told them to carry out.”
• “The White House expanded its attack on the legal profession to the private bar, targeting Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss because of representations they undertook that the Trump administration viewed as hostile to the president.”
• “It’s telling that the administration is broadcasting its retribution. The public fight with these three highly respected law firms is designed to intimidate the entire legal community through the implicit threat of future blackballing and by intimidating clients into pressuring law firms to cooperate with the administration. Corporate clients right now are likely grilling their counsel about whether they engage in pro bono or other litigation disfavored by Trump.”
• “Despite the likelihood Perkins Coie will prevail in court, the message has been sent.”
• “Even if courts declare it unlawful for the government to formally blackball law firms, lawyers and clients will fear that if they challenge this administration, they will be treated unfairly during interactions with federal agencies that are the bread and butter of their practice. One client recently dropped Paul Weiss as his defense counsel, saying Trump’s order ‘may negatively affect his ability to obtain a favorable review of his case.'”
• “The firms that have the greatest expertise and experience litigating against the government are most at risk. The administration’s public demonstration of vindictiveness will have ripple effects, regardless of the outcome of litigation challenging it. Given Paul Weiss’ prominence, the success of the administration’s bullying and shakedown is stunning and will reverberate through the legal profession.”

Skadden associate Rachel Cohen very publicly resigned last week, posting her firmwide email on LinkedIn (1000+ comments): “With gratitude and urgency” —

• “When I went to law school and to Skadden, I did so in pursuit of agency. I was driven by a desire to be in rooms where decision-makers were, to get to play a role in things that mattered, because things felt so needlessly terrible. It never occurred to me that the people in those rooms might feel that they were powerless. I am forced to hope that our lack of response to the Trump administration’s attacks on our peers, both those at other large firms and the many people in this country with far fewer resources, is rooted in feelings of fear and powerlessness, as opposed to tacit agreement or desire to maximize profit. I still hope that is true. But it has not yet been borne out.”
• “There is an open letter (now signed by over 600 other AmLaw 200 associates, many of them at this firm), mainstream media coverage and an oped explaining why I feel this way.”
• “Know that I attended internal meetings about this topic, sent emails to decision makers, avoided commenting on the EEOC investigation publicly or airing any internal firm discourse publicly. I did all of these things out of hope that we would do the right thing if given time and opportunity.”
• “The firm has been given time and opportunity to do the right thing. Thus far, we have not. This is a moment that demands urgency. Whether we are failing to meet it because we are unprepared or because we don’t wish to is irrelevant to me—and to the world—where the outcome is the same. If we were going to resist, we would have done so already. If we were not going to respond to the EEOC (a refusal that would be fully legal), the firm would have already told us.”
• “I recognize not everyone is positioned as I am, and cannot act the same way. But do not recruit for this firm if they cannot protect their employees. Do not pretend that what is happening is normal or excusable. It isn’t.”
• “To the many superiors, support staff and friends that I know I disappoint by making this announcement firmwide instead of talking to you first, I sincerely apologize. There are so many thank yous that I have for so many people at this firm. Please know that if you suspect that you have helped me or taught me or cared for me, that I agree and am eternally grateful. In the coming days, I will make every effort to reach out to you separately, but there is urgency here that makes it impossible to go to each of you first. I will do everything in my power to mitigate difficulties caused by my unexpected departure.”
• “Like any self-important adolescent, I spent most of my high school history classes wondering what I would do in the moments before true horror or chaos or where my values were tested and demanded great sacrifice. I do not wonder anymore. I know who I am. I thought I knew who we all were.”

Above the Law noted: “Will Clients Trust Paul Weiss Again?” —

• “‘Would you want to be represented by a law firm that can’t even stand up for itself? A law firm that might sell you out to the federal government to save its own skin?’ — Deepak Gupta, founder of Gupta Wessler LLP and lecturer at Harvard Law School, sounding off on Bluesky about Paul Weiss’s decision to acquiesce to the Trump administration.”

“Big Law Firms Scrub Mueller Ties as Trump Targets Enemies” —

• “Four law firms scrubbed references to their lawyers’ roles in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as President Donald Trump attacks past legal foes.”
• “Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, WilmerHale, Cooley, and Davis Polk & Wardwell removed the references from lawyer bios on their websites late last year and this year, a Bloomberg Law analysis of current and archived firm web pages shows.”
• “The four law firms didn’t respond to requests for comment. A review of internet archives shows they scrubbed Mueller references between October and March 20. In Paul Weiss’ case, the archives show the firm changed its lawyer’s webpage after March 1.”
• “Firms’ move to scrub websites of Mueller mentions is a form of ‘appeasement’ when they instead should be defending their lawyers’ ability to work on cases that are adverse to Trump, said Liz Oyer, a former pardons attorney at the Justice Department who was terminated earlier this month.”
• “WilmerHale, where Mueller practiced as a partner before retiring in 2021, removed Mueller’s biography page between November and March, a review of archived webpages shows. WilmerHale is one of 20 firms targeted in an EEOC investigation into diversity programs at law firms.”
• “This year, WilmerHale also removed the mention of Mueller’s investigation from the webpage of retired partner James Quarles III, who rejoined the firm with Mueller in 2019 after service in the special counsel’s office.”
• “This year, Davis Polk revised webpages of Greg Andres, co-head of the firm’s white collar defense and investigations practice, and white collar partner Uzo Asonye to omit references to the Mueller probe. The firm highlighted their role on Mueller’s investigative team and prosecution of Manafort in previous iterations. The pair left the special counsel’s office in 2019 to join Davis Polk, according to their LinkedIn profiles.”
• “Cooley removed a paragraph from the profile of white collar partner Andrew Goldstein, who was formerly referred to by Cooley’s website as one of Mueller’s ‘top deputies’ in the special counsel’s office. His page previously highlighted a front-page story by The New York Times that described his ‘day-to-day’ leadership role.”
• “The EEOC sent letters to 20 large firms, including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Ropes & Gray, and Simpson Thacher, launching investigations for possible discrimination in their diversity programs. Trump three days earlier issued an executive order against Paul Weiss that stripped the Wall Street firm of security clearances and threatened to cancel government contracts held by its clients, while ordering agency heads to restrict its lawyers’ access to federal government buildings.”

“Cut a Deal or File a Suit? Every Big Law Response to Trump Scrutiny Is a Blueprint” —

• “The law firms that have been subject to the Trump administration’s executive actions have pursued a range of approaches over the last week, from directly confrontational to seeking common ground.”
• “And as speculation grows over which law firm or lawyer Trump may target next, the approaches by Covington & Burling; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and Perkins Coie may also serve as a blueprint for others that are proactively planning their strategy.”
• “Although some in the industry have lamented the lack of a singular approach, or a more adversarial one, some communications experts and consultants say firms are handling it the way they might advise clients to handle their matters. In other words, carefully weighing the pros and cons and evaluating likely outcomes while acting under narrow time constraints.”
• “‘No two situations are alike. No two jurisdictions are alike. There are many decisions that go into handling these matters for law firms,’ said Gina Rubel, CEO and general counsel of Furia Rubel, a global crisis and consulting agency. She added that ‘not everyone is going to love’ their decisions, alluding to the range of voices from inside firms and their clients who are calling for different approaches.”
• “Law firms, she said, are ‘doing a legal and cost analysis, and saying, ‘What is in our clients’ best interest? What is in our best interest? Who do we want to be at the end of this? How much is too much?'”
• “Leslie Levin, an ethics law professor at the University of Connecticut Law School, said every firm has its own tolerance for risk, so the varying responses are not a surprise. She said, though, that litigation—as well as consensus-building within law firm management committees themselves—takes time, and the firms may not feel they have that luxury.”
• “‘It feels more like they’re trying to weigh the costs and benefits of acting, and they’ve got to look at their own clients. My guess is that Paul Weiss is listening to what clients say. I’m sure they’re hearing a lot from their clients,’ Levin said.”
• “On the other side of the spectrum, Covington and Perkins Coie—also facing administration actions—are pursuing litigation against the administration, whether on behalf of clients or the firm.”
• “Covington joins about a dozen Am Law 200 firms now involved in litigation against the Trump administration—some pro bono, others not—on behalf of clients. That includes Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; Hogan Lovells; Jenner & Block; Ropes & Gray; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer; Milbank; Saul Ewing; Munger, Tolles & Olson; and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.”
• “Whatever approach a law firm takes, Cari Brunelle, founding partner of legal advisory firm Baretz & Brunelle, listed out some of the factors—and consequences—as a result of the approach: the financial cost associated with a protracted court battle; or flight risk of talent, with partners choosing to go elsewhere because of so much uncertainty, or because they disagree with their leaders’ ultimate choices.”
• “There’s also the potential for client and reputational backlash. ‘As a leader, you’re never going to be able to make everyone happy, and so, when you’re dealing with a situation like this, you have to put the interest of the firm above all else,’ Brunelle said. ‘So, whatever that means for you, it may be different than what others would think.'”

Friday night update: “Trump hangs sword of Damocles over the American legal system” —

• “President Donald Trump is doubling down on his threats against the American legal system, directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against lawyers and law firms that go against him.”
• “The memo circulated late Friday, entitled ‘Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court’, marks an escalation of Trump’s crackdown on law firms he believes have crossed him, now threatening the full power of the Department of Justice to punish them.”
  “‘Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,’ the memo reads.”
• “In it, Trump directs Bondi to seek sanctions against lawyers and law firms that ‘engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.’ He also pushes Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to ‘prioritize enforcement’ of proper attorney conduct.”
• “Any unethical or unprofessional conduct will result in disciplinary action, the memo warns, which could include revoking security clearances and federal contracts — a lever he has already pulled repeatedly to target several firms with clients that have challenged Trump.”
• “This enforcement will also be retroactive, as the memo instructs Bondi to look back at the conduct of lawyers or law firms over the last eight years for misconduct.”
• “Friday’s memorandum comes as the nation’s law firms are already running scared over Trump’s promised retribution. Several lawyers that spoke to POLITICO shared their fear after the executive orders targeting specific law firms in a retaliatory spree connected to his political rivals.”
• “But Trump’s new memo signals this is only the beginning.”
• “He lists examples of ‘grossly unethical misconduct’ and references Marc Elias of the Elias Law Group, one of the most prominent Democratic attorneys in the nation. Elias was also a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign while an attorney at Perkins Coie and was central to the commissioning of the now-infamous Steele dossier.”
• “Earlier this week, Elias penned an op-ed saying that while he was concerned about retribution from Trump, he wouldn’t cave to pressure from the president.”
• “‘Now that Trump has proven to be a ruthless autocrat, too many have grown timid and silent,’ Elias wrote on his website Democracy Docket.
• “‘Law firms and individual attorneys have a great power, and obligation, to serve the rule of law, justice, and order,’ the memo states. ‘The Attorney General, alongside the Counsel to the President, shall report to the President periodically on improvements by firms to capture this hopeful vision.'”

“Law Office Wolf Haldenstein Says Hack Affected 3.4 Million” —

• “Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a law firm that represents consumers in data breach lawsuits and other disputes, has reported to regulators its own large 2023 hacking incident affecting more than 3.4 million individuals.”
  “The law firm – which has offices in New York, Chicago, Nashville and San Diego – told Maine’s attorney general on Wednesday [1/15] that information potentially compromised in the incident includes name, Social Security number, employee identification number, medical diagnosis, and medical claim information. Of the more than 3.4 million individuals affected, about 3,200 were Maine residents, Wolf Haldenstein told the state’s regulators.”
• “Wolf Haldenstein said the hack was discovered in December 2023 when the firm detected suspicious activity in its network environment. ‘Upon discovery of this incident, Wolf Haldenstein promptly took steps to secure its network and engaged a specialized cybersecurity firm to investigate the nature and scope of the incident,’ the firm’s breach notice said.”
• “The investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed certain files and data stored within the firm’s network, the notice said. ‘Wolf Haldenstein also conducted an examination of its systems and networks using all information available to determine the potential impact and the security of data housed on its servers,’ the firm said.”
• “‘Wolf Haldenstein subsequently undertook a time-consuming and detailed review of the data stored on the servers at the time of this incident to understand to whom that data relates,’ the firm said. Nearly a year later, on Dec. 3, 2024, Wolf Haldenstein identified a subset of potentially affected persons but the firm was unable to locate address information to provide direct notice to that group of individuals, the law firm said.”
• “Wolf Haldenstein had previously reported the hack to regulators in some other states, including Vermont in May. The law firm also reported the incident on Thursday to the Texas attorney general’s office as affecting nearly 328,000 Texans. But the firm’s report Wednesday to Maine’s attorney general appears to be the first and only time the law firm publicly disclosed that millions of individuals were affected by the incident.”
• “As of Thursday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ HIPAA Breach Reporting Tool website did not show any HIPAA breach reports filed by Wolf Haldenstein.”
• “‘Wolf Haldenstein’s data breach and the tortuous investigation it took to find the breach is a law firm’s worst nightmare,’ said regulatory attorney Paul Hales of the Hales Law Group, which is not involved in the Wolf Haldenstein incident.”
• “‘Maintaining system-wide HIPAA compliance is challenging but manageable for organizations with multiple locations like Wolf Haldenstein,’ he said. ‘Strict client confidentiality is paramount in law firms, but the minimum necessary standard for access to protected health information can inadvertently be overlooked,’ he said.”
• “‘Wolf Haldenstein’s lengthy, painstaking breach investigation underscores the rationale for HHS OCR’s proposed Security Rule modifications that would require mapping the movement of electronic PHI throughout a HIPAA-regulated entity’s electronic information systems and a technology asset inventory,’ he said.”

“Law Firm Faces Data Breach Class Action From Consumers Extending Beyond Client Base” —

• “A group of consumers sued a law firm for a data breach that allegedly exposed their personal information despite never having an affiliation with the firm, raising concerns about its allegedly unauthorized collection and storage of their sensitive data.”
• “Lead plaintiff Jason Warren alleged that, in early August, Riley Pope & Laney learned that cybercriminals had gained access to consumers’ personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the more than 7,000 class members affected by the data breach were never associated with the law firm, never sought an association and never consented to the firm collecting and storing their sensitive information.”
• “The breach allegedly occurred due to inadequate training of IT and data security agents, the suit stated. The firm then allegedly waited six months to begin notifying affected individuals of the breach, which made victims vulnerable to identify theft without warnings to monitor their financial records or credit reports.”
• “Riley Pope & Laney’s legal services are specialized for corporations and employers who oversee highly sensitive data, the complaint said, requiring them to manage and secure the PII of its clients’ employees. However, these employees did not do any business with the law firm, according to Warren.”
• “The risk of unauthorized uses of victims’ information is still ‘substantially high,’ the complaint stated, due to the law firm’s lack of corrective measures following the data breach.”

“Law firm Berman & Rabin reports breach affecting 152K people” —

• “The law firm Berman & Rabin is notifying around 152,000 individuals of a data breach following a ransomware attack that occurred in July 2024. The breach exposed sensitive personal information, prompting the company to take precautionary measures to protect those affected.”
• “Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, Berman & Rabin is a law firm that focuses on debt collection and creditor rights, providing legal services to financial institutions, businesses, and lenders. With over 140 employees, the firm has built a reputation for handling creditor-specific legal matters.”
• “The incident was discovered on July 8, 2024, when the law firm detected suspicious activity within its systems, including the encryption of certain data. An investigation revealed that attackers had accessed the company’s network between July 5 and July 8, during which time they exfiltrated data from several systems.”
• “By October, it became clear that the compromised data included names, Social Security numbers, and financial information. Although there is no confirmed misuse of the stolen data, Berman & Rabin is notifying affected individuals as a cautionary step.”
• “In response to the breach, the law firm has begun sending written notifications to approximately 151,944 individuals.”
• “While details about the ransomware used in the attack remain unknown, no ransomware group has claimed responsibility for the breach. This situation could indicate that a ransom was paid, though the affected company has not commented on this possibility.”