Bressler Risk Blog

Longtime reader Roy Simon, the Howard Lichtenstein Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Legal Ethics at Hofstra University, sent word that he’s looking for a lawyer who is in good standing in New York interested in being a co-author for the next edition of: “Simon’s New York Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated.” He writes:

• “If you could put out a general call for interest, that would be very helpful.  The treatise is in its 24th edition (with the 25th at the publisher) and is now over 2000 pages. It requires a good deal of upkeep — New York’s Courts amended 20 separate provisions in the New York Rules of Professional Conduct in 2025, and a few more rules are likely to be amended this year or early next, plus I summarize every new ethics opinion from a New York ethics committee (about 20 total opinions a year), plus major court decisions.  But I enjoy every minute working on the book and I think a co-author would as well.  I would of course share royalties in a fair way with any co-author(s).”
• If interested, you can find his contact information: here.

David Kluft spotsthe best stuff. His latest: “Can I create a conflict of interest by falsely declaring I represent my opponent?” —

• “The majority owner of a CA car dealership fired the manager, who was also a minority owner. When the manager kept coming to work and refused to leave, the dealership initiated a trespass action against him. The manager hired a lawyer to represent him in the trespass proceedings.”
• “Meanwhile, the dealership was also in hot water with the manufacturer, which issued a notification that it was terminating the franchise. The majority owner filed a separate suit on behalf of the dealership to protest this.”
• “The manager decided to interfere with the franchise action by engaging in a stunt. He had his lawyer from the trespass case intervene in the franchise case and also a file a protest, purportedly on behalf of the dealership (i.e., ‘I’m the real owner of this franchise!’).”
• “The manager and his lawyer were bounced from the franchise case for lack of standing. This caused the dealership to move for the manager’s lawyer’s disqualification from the trespass case. The argument basically was: if he says (even incorrectly) that he represents the dealership in the franchise case, he can’t be adverse to the dealership in this case.”
• “The manager’s lawyer’s defense was essentially that he never really represented the dealership – he just said he did to make a rhetorical point on behalf of his client. The manager’s lawyer cited case law in which an attorney representing a corporate defendant in a class action lawsuit incorrectly informed the court that he represented the employees too, and the Court of Appeal held that this incorrect unilateral declaration cannot create an attorney client relationship and therefore it cannot create a conflict.”
• “However, here, the record contained evidence that this was not merely a mistake: a client (the manager) with apparent authority (because he was also a minority owner) hired a lawyer expressly to represent the dealership, and the lawyer represented himself as such many times, notwithstanding the whole thing being a dumb stunt. The lawyer was disqualified.”
• Decision: here.

“Federal Court in Seattle Addresses Standing for Disqualification Motions” —

• “The Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) typically supply the substantive law of disqualification for determining, for example, whether a law firm has a conflict. The procedural elements of disqualification, by contrast, are court-made law. A recent case from the federal district court in Seattle illustrated a key procedural aspect of disqualification litigation: standing. “
• “As a general proposition, the party bringing a disqualification motion must be either a current or former client of the targeted law firm and the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that requisite standing. ”
  “Shenzhen Yihong Technology Co. Ltd. v. Dbest Products, Inc., 2026 WL 2267436 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2026) (unpublished), is a patent-infringement case. Plaintiff’s counsel had handled earlier cases against the same defendant. During those earlier cases, the defendant’s lawyers had provided discovery to plaintiff’s counsel and negotiated settlements. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, had never represented the defendant. Nonetheless, the defendant moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel—arguing that the knowledge it had gained through its prior work was disqualifying. The court denied the motion. “
• “The court began by finding that the defendant lacked standing to bring the motion because it had never been a client of plaintiff’s counsel. The court then went on to conclude that simply obtaining information about an opponent through either discovery or settlement negotiations did not provide an alternative basis for standing. While the decision doesn’t plow any new analytical ground, it includes a useful survey of the law on standing in disqualification. The decision also serves as a reminder of the important role court-made procedural law plays in disqualification litigation.”

“Judge: Madison County auditor must find new attorney, county will pay” —

• “Madison County Auditor Michele Brant will have to find a new attorney to represent her in her case against two county supervisors.”
• “On Friday, a judge disqualified County Attorney Stephen Swanson from representing Auditor Brant in the case due to a conflict of interest. However, the judge rejected the idea that Brant should have to pay for her own attorney.”
  In the overarching case, Brant claims that supervisors Jessica Hobbs and Heather Stancil retaliated against her after she filed a civil rights complaint. Hobbs and Stancil later voted to restructure Brant’s office and repeatedly denied her efforts to hire for a position within her office, even though it had already been approved within the budget.”
  Swanson, who would normally represent the board in his position as county attorney, had argued during a July hearing that there was no conflict of interest since Stancil and Hobbs voted months ago to retain a high-end legal firm to represent them in county matters.”
• “The judge disagreed, finding that Swanson is required by statute to represent Madison County and its officers, according to court records.”
• “Under Iowa Code §331.759, the court ordered that the reasonable and necessary costs of representing Brant in her official capacity as Madison County Auditor be paid from Madison County’s general fund. Stancil and Hobbs, and their $305-per-hour taxpayer-funded attorney, had tried to argue that Brant should pay for the legal fees herself since the board approves litigation fees and it would be unlikely that Stancil and Hobbs, who together make up a board majority, would vote in favor of the move.”
• “The ruling does not resolve the underlying retaliation case. For now, there is a court-ordered pause on the effort to make any changes to Auditor Brant’s office.”
• Decision: here.

These sentiments definitely align with the feedback shared by risk leaders in the survey report on AI for law firm risk we published last week.

“What Corporate Clients Want to Know About Law Firms’ Use of AI” —

• “Artificial intelligence has become a routine topic of discussion between law firms and their corporate clients, but the nature of those conversations has changed significantly over the past few years. Early discussions often centered on whether outside counsel should use AI at all. Today, clients have moved beyond that threshold question and instead want to understand how AI is being used, what safeguards govern its use, and how it can create greater value without compromising quality, confidentiality, or professional judgment.”
• “Rather than asking whether a firm uses artificial intelligence, clients want to understand how AI fits into legal workflows, which tools are being used, what tasks they support, how client information is protected, and what level of attorney oversight exists before work product reaches the client.”
• “As Andrew Woolf, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Cozen O’Connor, explained: ‘Across the board, the questions are becoming more practical, detailed, and technical. The question has moved from ‘Are you using AI?’ to ‘How are you using it, and how are you controlling it?’’ He explained that clients want detailed information regarding the AI models and platforms firms use, whether client data is retained or used for model training, what security controls are in place, and how attorneys supervise AI-assisted work.”
• “Several interviewees also observed a notable shift in client attitudes toward AI itself. Aubrey Bishai, Chief Innovation Officer at Vinson & Elkins, explained that conversations have evolved from clients saying, ‘Don’t use AI on my matters’ to now saying, ‘Please use AI on my matters where it makes sense.’ According to Bishai, today’s discussions focus less on whether AI should be used and more on where it can appropriately support legal work, while fostering greater transparency and collaboration between law firms and in-house legal departments.”
• “Alma Asay, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Crowell & Moring, similarly noted that clients are increasingly addressing AI through outside counsel guidelines, requests for proposal (RFPs), and governance surveys. Rather than imposing blanket prohibitions, many clients now permit AI use within defined parameters while requesting consultation before AI is used in higher-risk situations. She also observed that clients frequently ask what peer organizations are doing, reflecting an industry-wide effort to benchmark AI governance practices.”
• “As Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Blank Rome, explained: ‘Innovation and AI governance aren’t mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other.’ Rather than trading confidentiality or quality for efficiency, clients increasingly expect firms to leverage AI responsibly while maintaining the same standards of legal excellence they have always demanded.”
• “Bishai echoed that sentiment, explaining that clients are simultaneously focused on innovation, efficiency, confidentiality, security, and quality. She emphasized that enterprise-grade AI platforms, attorney training, and alignment among people, processes, and technology have become essential components of responsible AI adoption. Firms are also collaborating with clients by sharing lessons learned and helping develop best practices as both sides continue to integrate AI into legal work.”
  Attorney accountability emerged as another recurring theme. Asay noted that, regardless of technological advances, ‘Ultimately what they are paying for is our lawyers’ legal advice and judgment’ and that clients continue to expect attorneys to understand both the benefits and limitations of AI, independently verify AI-generated work, and remain personally responsible for the final legal product.”
• “AI Governance Is Becoming Part of Outside Counsel Selection. As Asay put it, ‘It’s not looking ahead, it’s today.’ She explained that clients are already incorporating AI considerations into panel counsel selection, RFPs, outside counsel guidelines, and governance reviews. RFPs now often require firms to explain how AI will be used on specific matters, while clients are seeking greater transparency regarding governance policies, attorney supervision, approved technologies, and documentation surrounding AI use.”
• “The industry leaders we spoke with also identified several emerging governance trends, including formal written AI governance frameworks, explicit supervisory responsibilities for attorneys overseeing AI-assisted work, documentation regarding when and how AI is used, and growing interest in standardized governance models that can be applied consistently across outside counsel relationships.”
• “Batchelor compared AI governance to the evolution of cybersecurity requirements, observing that ‘AI governance is becoming as ubiquitous as information security and pricing in outside counsel engagements.’ While governance expectations continue to evolve, she expects greater convergence across the legal industry as clients and firms develop more consistent standards for responsible AI use.”

“Rethinking Outside Counsel Guidelines for the AI Era: Ohio’s AI Ethics Guidelines as a Template for Legal Teams” —

• “AI Is Now Embedded in Client Expectations. One of the most important developments goes beyond formal guidance. Clients now ask direct questions about AI use.They want to know whether their counsel uses AI, how it is governed, and what safeguards are in place to protect their data.”
• “This demand has already reshaped outside counsel guidelines (OCGs). What began as simple disclosure language now includes detailed governance requirements, approved tool lists, and data retention expectations.”
• “Prepare for client scrutiny be developing a clear AI usage policy. Align it with client expectations and industry norms, and be ready to explain how your approach improves efficiency and controls risk.”
• “Firms that answer these questions confidently gain a competitive edge.”
• “Governance Must Move Beyond Quick Fixes. AI governance is no longer a one-line policy update. It requires integration across the business.”
• “Retention policies, discovery readiness, supplier management, and internal training all come into play. Even AI search histories may become discoverable in certain contexts, making documentation and retention decisions critical.”
• “Teams must build a structured governance model:”
  • “Define retention rules for AI interactions”
  • “Align policies with discovery obligations.”
  • “Regularly review and update guidance as tools evolve.”
• “Quick fixes will not hold up under scrutiny. Comprehensive governance will.”
• “Ohio’s guidance does not break new ground. That is precisely its value. It confirms that responsible AI use in legal practice rests on familiar principles. Competence, confidentiality, supervision, and fair billing remain the foundation. The difference lies in how those principles apply when AI is involved.”
• “Legal teams are empowered to use AI to improve efficiency and reduce cost. To do so, maintain rigorous oversight and ethical discipline and align practices with client expectations and evolving standards.”
• “This approach strengthens defensibility, builds client trust, and creates a more consistent, scalable model for adopting AI with confidence.”

“From permission to performance: What clients now expect from AI-enabled law firms” —

• “We recently had the chance to talk with Chief Information Officer Skip Lohmeyer and Partner and Public Finance Attorney Carlos Manzano from Parker Poe about the rapidly evolving conversation about AI between in-house teams and outside counsel, and what that means for how firms operate and how clients select the right teams to hire.”
• “Carlos Manzano: Two or three years ago, clients were mostly asking whether AI use was permissible… In 2026, that conversation has fundamentally shifted. Today, in-house legal teams are leveraging AI themselves to compress timelines, reduce routine work, and handle high volumes. Clients are benchmarking firms against their own operations and asking not whether their law firm uses AI, but what value outside counsel can actually deliver that their own capable teams cannot. The expectation has moved from permission to performance, and the firms that have not kept pace are starting to feel it.”
• “What makes this shift particularly meaningful is the gap it has started to expose. The capabilities of generative AI tools have raised the floor for everyone providing legal services. The tools that felt like differentiators eighteen months ago are rapidly becoming baseline expectations. The more important competitive shift, though, is how AI empowers lawyers to raise the ceiling.”
• “Skip Lohmeyer: Increasingly, clients view AI through the lens of risk management, operational efficiency, and business value. We see that reflected in conversations with clients, in RFPs, and in outside counsel guidelines.”
• “Many clients are establishing expectations around confidentiality, data security, transparency, and attorney accountability when AI is used. At the same time, a growing number are asking different questions: where is AI improving efficiency and responsiveness, why would a law firm not use it responsibly, and how is it reducing legal costs?”
• “What has not changed is accountability. Clients hire lawyers for judgment, experience, and trusted counsel. AI can help us work more efficiently, but it does not replace legal analysis or professional responsibility. We remain accountable for every work product we deliver and every recommendation we make.”
  “Skip Lohmeyer: We evaluate AI through three lenses: client value, risk management, and practical implementation. If a tool can help us deliver work more efficiently, provide deeper insight, or improve responsiveness while maintaining appropriate safeguards, we explore how to incorporate it into our workflows.”
• “At the same time, we recognize that clients have different expectations and risk tolerances. Some clients are encouraging broader AI adoption. Others prefer tighter controls. We have built our governance and operational processes to support both.”
  “Carlos: Make governance a non-negotiable part of the evaluation as well. In-house counsel should understand whether the firm’s approved tools can train on client data, what security or privacy commitments apply, and who is ultimately accountable for AI-assisted work product before it reaches the client.”

Hot off the heels of the recent release of the agentic AI for law firm risk survey report, I’m pleased to invite our law firm risk readers to participate in the 2026 Risk Staffing Compensation Survey [HERE]! 

Last year’s exercise, our fourth go, was a great success. We saw participation from 108 individuals, providing nearly 700 data points on US-based risk positions.

Given the large number of report requests over the past year, I once again think we still have room to grow in 2026 numbers! (For those who don’t participate, the fee for a report/personal benchmark will go up in 2027. So, there’s an incentive to contribute.)

Given feedback on the last report, I think we’ve arrived at good framework for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. We’ve edited a question or two, but folks should find the exercise familiar.

It’s gratifying to see mangers using this data to pursue adjustments for their team and to support recruiting processes. I’m also always happy to hear from individuals using this industry data to self advocate.

So if you’re an individual contribution looking to understand how your comp compares to your peers, or you’re a risk director/manager looking to keep your team (and potential new hires) on par with changing market standards, you don’t want to miss out.

SURVEY DETAILS:

• Participation open to law firm risk professionals only
• All responses will be treated confidentially
• Risk Director / Manager participants sharing data on themselves and their team’s roles and compensation will receive a report summarizing key findings and analysis relevant to their firm demographics
  • (The report may be shared internally within your firm, but not redistributed externally. So if you want the results, your best path is to participate!)
  • NOTE: You’ll need to provide detail on the number of risk staff at your firm and compensation details on yourself and all reports, or you risk a survey report “disqualification.”
  • And if you want the Q&A results section, you’ll need to participate in that optional section as well.
• Individual contributor participants sharing personal compensation data will be receive a personal benchmark compensation summary relevant to their specific role and firm demographics.

The survey will be open through September 30, and can be accessed here: 2026 Risk Staffing Compensation Survey.

Feel free to share the link with law firm peers and colleagues!

And if anyone has questions (or really needs more time), please do reach out to me directly. (Email readers can do that by just replying to this note — it’ll reach me. Others can use the contact form as well.)

Let’s see what we learn this round!

A Note to Canadian Readers:

• Given compensation differences across the border, last year I shifted away from aggregating all North American data into the averages.
• If there’s sufficient participation from Canada, I’ll generate a localised report for that geography.
• I want to support this segement of loyal and supportive readers, but we need a critical mass of firms and data points. So, encourage your colleagues and let’s see what develops!

“Nelson Mullins Faces Ex-Client’s $1M Fee Suit Over Conflict” —

• “A former client of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough is suing the firm and two partners over their fees, claiming they failed to disclose a conflict in representing him in a fraud investigation and indictment that later landed him 10 years in prison.”
• “Brian Martinsen, who was convicted of defrauding investors in nine related private funds referred to as ‘StraightPath Funds’ and sentenced to 10 years in prison in May, filed a complaint in the Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday looking to reclaim $950,000 he said should have been refunded to him after Nelson Mullins withdrew as his counsel.”
• “According to the complaint, Nelson Mullins and its partners Scott Sherman and Jonathan Etra failed to disclose a conflict of interest until opposing counsel from the government pointed out the issue to the federal judge handling Martinsen’s case.”
• “The conflict, according to the complaint, was that Nelson Mullins also represented Martinsen’s co-defendants and co-fund-principals Michael Castillero and Eric Lachow in a related civil enforcement action, both of whom had then become cooperating government witnesses against Martinsen. The partners and the firm knew about this when they agreed to represent Martinsen against the government, the complaint states.”
• “Martinsen said Nelson Mullins had him execute a $1.5 million retainer agreement on the day of his arraignment in 2023 and accepted a wire from him for the same amount despite the conflict. The conflict remained undisclosed to Martinsen until March 2025 when the government filed a letter with the Southern District of New York court alerting the judge that Martinsen did not have the conflict-free counsel he was entitled to under the Sixth Amendment, the suit says.”
• “After that letter was filed, Nelson Mullins filed a motion to withdraw as Martinsen’s counsel. The court granted that withdrawal motion, and Martinsen retained new attorneys, Matthew Brissenden and Kevin Keating, both of whom run their own law offices.”
• “Nelson Mullins did not fully refund Martinsen’s retainer, the complaint states. Instead, the firm held on to $950,000 of the $1.5 million on the ‘self-serving’ determination that it had earned that amount in fees despite the conflict, the lawsuit alleges. Martinsen’s state court suit seeks to recover that remaining amount.”
• “‘Under controlling New York authority, an attorney who engages in misconduct by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct is not entitled to legal fees for the services rendered, and an attorney whose own conflict of interest compels withdrawal may not recover in quantum meruit,’ the suit says.”
• “The complaint seeks fee forfeiture and disgorgement for the $950,000 held by Nelson Mullins. It also lays out claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, deceit and unjust enrichment.”
• “Further, the suit states that Nelson Mullins failed to provide Martinsen with the required written engagement letter when it first started representing him. Martinsen asked the court to grant him treble damages with interest as well as the fees and costs of his suit against Nelson Mullins.”

“Playboy fights fee bid in dispute with ex-lawyers at Quinn Emanuel” —

• “Playboy Enterprises and Quinn Emanuel are locked in a dispute over unpaid legal fees after Playboy accused the U.S. law firm of mishandling litigation and ignoring conflicts of interest while representing the adult entertainment company.”
• “Playboy sued the law firm in Los Angeles Superior Court last week, asking a judge to halt an arbitration proceeding in which Quinn Emanuel is seeking legal fees it claims it is owed by Playboy from litigation over its iconic ‘bunny’ logo.”
• “The clash over fees stems from Quinn Emanuel’s prior work for Playboy in a lawsuit that alleged sexual wellness company Advanced Vita Supplements infringed the company’s bunny trademarks. Playboy claims Quinn Emanuel improperly steered the company away from naming additional defendants in the case because they were clients of the firm.”
• “Playboy argued in its August 18 filing that the arbitration should be paused until after a trial that is scheduled for March 2027 in the trademark case. The resolution of the trial, Playboy said, could affect its claims against the law firm.”
• “Quinn Emanuel initiated an arbitration proceeding in March seeking to recover about $712,000 in unpaid fees for its work on the Advanced Vita Supplements case. It represented Playboy in the case until 2024, when the company fired the firm and hired lawyers from Frost.”
• “Playboy said it has already paid Quinn Emanuel more than $4.5 million and will show the firm ‘was massively overpaid for the work it actually performed.'”
• “Quinn Emanuel has denied any wrongdoing and argued that the fee arbitration is separate from Playboy’s conflict-of-interest claims and should proceed. The firm said in court filings that its fees and costs billed to Playboy were reasonable.”

“Detroit Ethics Board to investigate top city lawyer for side job at Lear” —

• “The Detroit Board of Ethics voted Wednesday, Aug. 19 to investigate whether top City Hall attorney Conrad Mallett violated the city’s ethics ordinance by serving as a paid director of Lear Corp., an auto supplier receiving city tax breaks.”
• “The investigation comes after the Free Press reported in August that Mallett received $1.8 million in cash and stock awards from Lear while holding top city government posts. The company opened a large plant near City Airport in 2022 and is receiving an approximately $4 million, 12-year tax abatement approved by the Detroit City Council in October that year.”
• “At the ethics board’s meeting, Executive Director Christal Phillips said Mallett has failed to respond to recent requests from ethics board staff to disclose his position at Lear.”
• “The meeting also produced a new allegation: Phillips said Mallett never disclosed that his son had applied for or accepted a job with the city of Detroit, in potential violation of an ethics ordinance provision requiring officials exercising significant authority to identify immediate family members employed by the city ‘or making an application to the city for employment.'”
• “Board members also voiced concern that Mallett’s position as corporation counsel – where he helms the city’s Law Department – could complicate the investigation. The Board of Ethics relies on Law Department attorneys for legal advice, but those attorneys report to Mallett.”
• “‘We’re going to poke a bear,’ board member Raymond Card said, of going after a top city official appointed by the mayor with city council approval. ‘And we’ve got to get a clear path, because I’m a firm believer – I only trap things I can kill.'”
• “In a statement issued to the Free Press after the board’s meeting, Mallett said, ‘I will address BOE concerns about its disclosure process when I have an opportunity to speak to it during the course of their investigation. I am confident that I have operated in an ethical and transparent manner and that if there were any oversights, they were unintentional.'”
• “Mallett previously told the Free Press that he disclosed his Lear board position to former Mayor Mike Duggan and Mayor Mary Sheffield. He said he was not involved in the Lear plant deal in either of his roles with the city or the company.”
• “Detroit’s ethics ordinance bars public servants who exercise ‘significant authority’ from taking a loan or payment from individuals receiving city tax abatements, credits or exemptions. The Board of Ethics has previously determined that city employees may not accept compensation for board service from entities receiving city tax breaks or doing business with the city.”
• “Mallett has served on Lear’s board since 2002, and last year earned $335,000 in cash and stock awards, as first reported by the Free Press on June 1.”
• “Phillips said Mallett never disclosed his Lear income to the ethics board or in annual mayoral disclosures received by her office in 2024 and 2026. His 2026 mayoral disclosure, she said, indicated that he had no non-city employment income from 2025 through the date of the filing. On a separate question concerning board activities, Phillips said, Mallett listed ‘N/A.'”
• “Phillips said Mallett’s failure to respond to the board’s June 30, July 20 and July 30 requests also could amount to willful neglect of duty. A board investigator said that Mallett was among just 10 of 120 senior city employees who had not filed disclosure forms with the board this year.”
• “Ethics board investigations can result in public admonishments and, in extreme cases, referrals to law enforcement for possible criminal prosecution.”

Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2026-07: “Attorneys – Conflict – Prospective client” —

• “Where (1) a prospective client, seeking to file a personal injury action against a quasi-state entity, sought representation from an attorney, (2) the attorney ultimately declined the representation, and (3) the attorney has come under consideration to represent the entity, a conflict of interest does not exist prohibiting the inquiring attorney from representing the entity.”
• “‘Several years ago, an individual (the ‘Wife’) seeking to file a personal injury action on behalf of her husband was referred to the inquiring attorney for potential representation. The Wife’s claims centered on the allegedly injurious operations and development activity of a quasi-state entity (the ‘Entity’) occurring on an ongoing basis near her home. During the intake process, the inquiring attorney — and possibly his or her associate — discussed with the Wife the nature of the Wife’s inquiry, the feasibility of representation, anticipated litigation costs, and potential funding sources. The inquiring attorney states that at no time did he or she determine or provide a concrete case valuation, however. The inquiring attorney ultimately declined the representation due to the anticipated litigation expense, the Wife’s concomitant inability to obtain adequate funding, and the inquiring attorney’s then-current law firm’s capacity limitations.”
• “‘Recently, the inquiring attorney came under consideration to represent the Entity. Concerns have been raised regarding whether the inquiring attorney’s past interactions with the Wife constitute a conflict of interest prohibiting the inquiring attorney from representing the Entity. …”
• “‘Because the Wife actively sought representation from the inquiring attorney, she is a prospective client within the meaning of Rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. …”
• “‘… To be sure, the interests of the Wife and the Entity are undoubtedly materially adverse, given the Wife’s claims that the Entity’s ongoing operations and development activity have caused and continue to cause personal injury to her husband. … However, the Panel is unaware of any pending matter, substantially related or otherwise, involving the Wife and the Entity. …”
• “‘On the facts as described by the inquiring attorney, then, the Panel concludes that no conflict exists under Rule 1.18 rendering the inquiring attorney unable to represent the Entity. Should a matter arise involving both the Entity and the Wife, however, the Panel cautions the inquiring attorney that this calculus may change. …'”
• “Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2026-07 (Lawyers Weekly No. 75-021-26) (3 pages) (Aug. 13, 2026).”

“NJ Panel Says Arbitrators Don’t Have To Disclose Remote Ties” —

• “A New Jersey appellate panel on Friday rejected a former hospital employee’s argument that an arbitrator’s prior role as corporate counsel for a hospital her attorney had previously sued created a conflict of interest, ruling that such remote relationships don’t create a conflict.”
• “A three-judge Appellate Division panel said in a published opinion that the statute governing disclosure requirements for arbitrators requires more than a reference to the arbitrator’s former position, and applies only when the prior relationship creates a reasonable question of the arbitrator’s ability to be impartial.”
• “Angela Gray argued that had she known the arbitrator, a retired judge who was unnamed in the opinion, served as corporate counsel for Chilton Memorial Hospital for more than two decades, she would have objected to his appointment because her attorney Mark Mulick sued Chilton in 2003, the opinion said.”
• “Despite Gray’s argument, the panel held that there was no prior relationship between the parties. University Hospital, which Gray had sued for sexual harassment and retaliation, is a state-owned academic hospital, while Chilton is not, the panel said. There also was nothing on the record to show there was any professional contact or relationship between the arbitrator and the plaintiff’s counsel.”
• “‘Therefore, we hold a party-appointed arbitrator has no duty to disclose prior employment of over 20 years as corporate counsel for a former client, not a party to the litigation, nor a prior professional relationship with a plaintiff’s counsel during a limited portion of that time, because such remote relationships do not constitute a conflict of interest,’ Judge Avis Bishop-Thompson wrote for the panel.”
• “The panel further found Gray’s bid to vacate the arbitrator’s final award procedurally improper, and that she had waived any objections to the arbitrator’s appointment because the arbitrator had disclosed his prior employment before the final decision was issued.”
• “‘Even assuming the arbitrator’s statement constituted full disclosure of a potential conflict, plaintiff failed to timely object in writing and did not object on the record. Under both the [American Arbitration Association] Rule 36 and [New Jersey statute] 2A:23B-11, plaintiff waived the right to object to the arbitrator’s appointment,’ Judge Bishop-Thompson said.”

“‘Show How 3M Is 0% at Fault:’ Expert Witness Used ChatGPT to Write Report Defending Company in Deadly Explosion Lawsuit” —

• “An expert witness testifying in a lawsuit about liability for a Houston explosion that killed three people and destroyed roughly 200 homes used ChatGPT to write significant portions of his ‘expert report.’ The man, who was hired by the industrial product conglomerate 3M, exposed his AI prompts publicly. They showed that he asked ChatGPT to help him ‘create an exceptional expert witness report defending the standard of care at 3M,’ and that the report should ‘show how 3M is 0% at fault for the explosion at Watson Grinding.'”
• “The incident shows that artificial intelligence has made its way into courtrooms not just in AI-generated legal briefings, hallucinated cases, and adversarial ‘prompt injections,’ but in expert witness testimonies. Court transcripts, deposition documents, and discovery records shared with 404 Media show extensive AI use in an extremely high profile case, where multiple people died and hundreds of millions of dollars in total liability are at stake in ongoing litigation about the explosion. The case also shows that the specific prompts used to create this type of expert testimony can be discoverable during a case, and that those prompts can be quite embarrassing. (Prompts provided in the case are here). “
• “As part of the case, 3M hired a man named Josh Autenrieth of Knighthawk Engineering to prepare an ‘expert report’ about the explosion. During discovery in the case, Will Moye, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, found a five-page document called ‘Citation Overlay,’ which appeared to have been generated by AI. Moye recognized the Citation Overlay document as being from ChatGPT, and demanded all of the prompts Autenrieth used from 3M’s lawyers. The deposition was paused for three hours while they were gathered, and Moye was given 350 pages of ChatGPT conversations that Autenrieth had when creating the report. Those documents included ChatGPT’s public links to Autenrieth’s full conversations. Court transcripts suggest that 3M paid Knighthawk Engineering roughly $90,000 for its analysis, and a filing by 3M shows that Autenrieth’s rate was $475 per hour.”
• “The conversations show much of Autenrieth’s process from start to finish, which included telling ChatGPT that he was ‘being retained as a professional expert witness by 3M in defense of them in their lawsuits and other legal proceedings behind the January 2020 explosion at Watson Grinding.’ He told ChatGPT that he needed ‘to create an expert witness report to defend 3M’s standard of care for their work,’ and that, specifically, it needed ‘to counter the defense witness [sic] outlandish and false claims particularly about working on equipment you are not trained to and without the right permitting.’ He asked ChatGPT to help him find violations of various working standards, then attached hundreds of court records.”
• “Autenrieth then asked ChatGPT to read all of the attached records and to defend 3M, ‘illustrating the lack of [Process and Safety Management] and safety by Watson Grinding, defeating [the defense witness’] comments […] and show how 3M is 0% at fault for the explosion at Watson Grinding and how my background and experience is well suited to render this professional opinion.’ “
• “ChatGPT created a roughly 30-page report that included the line ‘From a technical and standard-of-care standpoint, 3M is 0% responsible for the January 24, 2020 explosion.’ This line did not make it into the final report filed with the court, because when Autenrieth later asked ChatGPT to ‘review this as the opposing council,’ ChatGPT determined that writing ‘‘0% responsible’ is an easy target’ for a lawyer to poke holes in, and is one of several ‘phrases [that] let opposing counsel paint you as an advocate rather than an expert.'”
• “Autenrieth used ChatGPT to help him make various edits to the report it had generated, and repeatedly uploaded different versions of the report, getting revisions from the tool, then uploading new versions of the report (in some of the chats he changed the subject from his expert witness testimony to having ChatGPT generate t-shirt images). He also asked ChatGPT to ‘grade’ his report (it got a 97/100), and ‘what are the 5 main things in my report the prosecution could attack and how do I defend them?’ He then asked ChatGPT if his resume was sufficient to be an expert witness; ‘will prosecution go after me for never having been [an expert witness] before based on wording and how do I defend that?’ “
• “The report that Autenrieth submitted to the court is structured the same as the initial output given by ChatGPT and large swaths of it are identical to what ChatGPT first outputted and the revisions that it recommended in Autenrieth’s subsequent chats.”
• “‘This expert relied on AI not as an assistive device, but exclusively relied on ChatGPT to form his opinions and write his report,’ Moye told 404 Media in a phone interview. ‘He acknowledged [at trial] the prompts he put in were biased toward 3M to help 3M win the case […] it’s really egregious.’ Moye added that many of the prompts took place the night before Autenrieth was deposed as an expert witness. ‘They hired him for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of the case. They hired him and he used ChatGPT to write these reports, so really, ChatGPT was the expert in the case. There’s just no question about that.'”
• “Moye told 404 Media that 3M eventually tried to get Autenrieth disqualified from the trial, but that after he learned Autenrieth extensively used AI to generate his report, he took the somewhat unusual step of calling the other side’s expert witness as his own witness. ‘I said, I’m calling you to trial because I need a jury to hear from you because this is bad, bad stuff. And that’s exactly what I did,’ Moye said.”
• “Beyond this being a highly interesting case on its own merits, it shows that ChatGPT transcripts can be obtained by opposing lawyers in discovery or during depositions. Moye said ‘every lawyer needs to make sure their own experts aren’t generating work product in a way that’s insincere, and then knowing you can subpoena the prompts […] I’ve got lawyers all over the place saying, 1) ‘Holy shit, man. How did you get the prompts?,’ and 2) ‘How many cases do I have where this is happening to us?’'”

“Law Firms’ AI Opportunity Is in the Back Office” —

• “Almost every AI conversation in legal right now is about attorney work. Drafting, review, research, contract analysis. Those tools are real, they’re getting better fast, and firms will need them to stay competitive. But look at what they do: they help attorneys work faster. In a business that sells time, faster doesn’t automatically show up as more revenue. Attorney-facing AI runs headfirst into the billable hour, and its value depends on attorneys changing how they work, which is a hard thing to do inside a law firm.”
• “That isn’t a knock on attorneys. It’s just how the incentives sit. The people whose behavior has to change are the same people who generate the revenue, set the culture, and can opt out at any time without consequence. Unless a firm has a managing partner or a board with unusual appetite for pushing technology, adoption is voluntary. And voluntary adoption is how you end up with a platform the firm paid for two years ago that four people use.”
  Meanwhile, the part of the firm where process optimization has the biggest impact is sitting right there. The Back Office Is Where the Firm Actually Runs. Intake. Conflicts. Matter setup. Reimbursements. Vendor payments. The work that has to happen before anyone can bill an hour, and the work that has to happen after.”
• “Two things are true about that work at most firms. The first is that it runs on genuinely old technology. The accounting and practice management platforms in this industry were architected a long time ago, and it shows in the number of clicks it takes to do anything.”
• “The second is more expensive: firms have built entire administrative processes around compensating for those interfaces. There are people whose job is substantially to be the connective tissue between systems that were never designed to talk to each other, and to chase attorneys who don’t want to fill out the form. Fix that and you don’t save hours in some theoretical way that never shows up in a financial statement. You reduce cost, and it goes straight to the bottom line.”
• Start with Intake, Because Intake Touches Everything. When a firm asks where to start, we start with intake. Not because intake is the biggest pain, though it usually is, but because of what building it forces you to connect.”
• “To run intake properly you need to reach the document management system, the accounting and billing platform, the conflicts data, and
• increasingly the CRM. Get intake right and you’ve built the foundation the rest of the back office runs on.”
  “Here’s what it looks like in practice. Today an attorney gets asked to fill out a long form. It may be dynamic, it may be well designed—it doesn’t matter. They don’t want to fill out a form. So instead, they send an email the way they would to a colleague. The system reads the email, derives the context, populates the form, and hands it to the admin team to review before anything moves. The person who is good at this work still puts eyes on it, fills in what’s missing, and kicks off the conflicts check. The human stays in the loop. The friction moves off the person least willing to absorb it.”
• “Two things make back-office AI difficult, and neither of them is the AI. The models are the easy part now and getting easier. What’s hard is everything they have to touch. The first is integration. The same platforms that make the back office painful to work in are painful to connect to. Some have a real API. Some have an API that covers a third of what you need. Some have nothing worth using, and you need to build a database connection, a nightly file, or a vendor conversation that takes a year to resolve. This is where the budget on these projects actually goes. Not the AI, which is comparatively cheap and getting cheaper. Any firm scoping this work should establish, before anything else, what its core systems will permit, and expect a few engineering challenges. ‘We have an API’ and ‘you can do what you need through the API’ are different sentences, and vendors are not always quick to distinguish them.”
• “The second is governance. You are building something that reads client email, touches conflicts data, and writes into the accounting system. That sits squarely inside the firm’s confidentiality obligations, and it sits on top of outside counsel guidelines that increasingly say specific things about AI. Some clients now require notice. Some require consent. Some prohibit certain uses outright.”
• “The item, less dramatic and in my experience the more common cause of failure: somebody has to own it. This is not a project with an end date. Processes change, systems get upgraded, a vendor renames a field and something quietly stops working. The firm needs a named person responsible for that, internal or fractional, but named. Firms that treat go-live as the finish line end up with a layer that worked well for eight months and nobody who noticed when it stopped.”
• “Go back to the deployment problem. The reason so much legal technology stalls is that it requires behavior change from people who don’t have to change. Back-office AI doesn’t. The attorney sends an email, which is what they were going to do anyway. The administrative team gets a better version of the process they already own. Nothing about the firm’s existing systems has to be ripped out, because the whole point is to sit on top of them and connect them.”
  “None of that changes because the work is hard. It’s a trade, and it’s one I’d make every time. The difficulty in back-office AI is technical, and technical problems can be scoped, priced, and handed to people you hire. The difficulty in attorney-facing AI is behavioral, and there is nobody you can hire to make a partner change how they work.”
• “The AI conversation in legal is going to stay focused on the attorneys, and it should. But if you’re looking for the place where AI can go into a law firm this year and produce a measurable result without a change management fight, it’s the part of the firm nobody is talking about.”

“Ex-Client Can’t Revive Brach Eichler Malpractice Suit” —

• “A New Jersey appellate panel on Thursday affirmed a lower court ruling granting summary judgment to Brach Eichler LLC in a suit accusing the firm of legal malpractice from its work in a long-running real estate dispute.”
• “In its ruling, the New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division agreed that Brian Delaney was barred from pursuing his conflict of interest claims against Brach Eichler because he failed to object to the firm’s participation during the original matter that led to the malpractice suit.”
• “The underlying suit, which originally stemmed from a matter in which Delaney sued his ex-partners for allegedly misappropriating his capital contributions to their former business venture, said that by failing to properly draft documents related to his ownership of Cash Cow Sparta Village, Brach Eichler helped set the dispute in motion when Prassas and the Dykstras decided to remove Delaney as a CC Holdings member.”
• “Three separate lawsuits ensued following Delaney’s ouster from CC Holdings, during which he never objected to Brach Eichler’s representation of Prassas despite its prior representation of Cash Cow Sparta Village, which he believed himself to be a part of, the opinion said.”
• “Additionally, because Delaney had already agreed to a settlement in a prior matter that included the mutual release of all claims, the panel said, he was no longer able to file another suit related to those issues.”
• “‘The judge specifically noted Delaney was collaterally estopped from relitigating issues previously decided, including the alleged conflict and his lack of ownership interest in [Cash Cow Sparta Village], both of which were central to the dismissal of his earlier claims,’ the panel said. ‘The court also found the statements made by Brach Eichler in its representation of Prassas were protected by the litigation privilege, regardless of their truth or falsity.'”
• “The decision affirming summary judgment comes after a 2020 opinion by the same court in which a panel overturned a trial court decision that barred Brach Eichler from serving as counsel in the underlying litigation, finding that Delaney gave up his right to seek the firm’s disqualification by not raising an objection in prior matters. The panel said the prior settlement also invalidates Delaney’s negligence claim as the decision to accept it meant he was unable to prove he suffered damages.”

“Video contradicts Fabián Basabe’s claim he wasn’t told of Judge’s campaign ties to opposing lawyers” —

• “Last week, embattled Republican state Rep. Fabián Basabe demanded the disqualification of the Judge who presided over the sexual harassment case he lost, arguing the Judge never disclosed ties he had with two lawyers representing the plaintiffs.”
• “Video of a pre-trial hearing recorded more than a month before jury selection shows that isn’t true.”
• “During a June 6, 2026, Zoom hearing, viewable below, Judge J. Lee Marsh said clearly that Katie Viker — who represented the plaintiffs alongside fellow lawyers Cindy Myers and Marie Mattox — serves on his active re-election committee. ‘Ms. Viker is also — I’ll make the disclosure, I don’t know if she’ll be on it, this one or not — she’s also on my campaign committee,’ Marsh said. ‘But again, I’m going to call balls and strikes. That’s my job. That’s the oath of office I have taken.'”
• “Basabe appears to have been present during the disclosure, as he asked Marsh a question about an expanded witness list soon after.”
• “Corben said his team hadn’t begun recording the meeting when Marsh made the earlier disclosure. He noted Marsh said ‘also’ when referring to Viker’s involvement and ‘again’ when asserting he’d ‘call balls and strikes’ as indicators of the prior, unrecorded disclosure.”
• “Basabe said Friday that he had ‘no knowledge’ of Mattox or Viker’s relationship with Marsh ‘prior to or during the trial.’ He said he only learned of it after finding posts on Marsh’s campaign page, which he screenshotted on July 27, seven days before he said the post vanished from the website.”
• “Florida Politics found that post still up on Marsh’s Facebook page, containing nine pictures of a sparsely attended event at Marsh’s law office and the caption, ‘Such a wonderful night at Marie A. Mattox, P.A. Thank you to Marie, Cindy, Katie, Kristen, and the entire team! The night wouldn’t have been complete without dancing!! Karin and I appreciate your support and everyone who is getting out the vote. Vote to Re-Elect Judge Lee Marsh on August 18th!!'”
• “Myers told Florida Politics she was the Cindy to whom Marsh referred in the post, but that she is not on Marsh’s re-election committee.”
  On July 15, more than three years after Basabe’s former aide Nicolas Frevola and ex-intern Jacob Cutbirth sued him, jurors found Basabe liable for sexual harassment, battery and defamation, awarding the two men $450,000 in damages.”
• “Basabe represented himself during the trial, against common wisdom and Marsh’s advice, after his lawyer Gus Harper officially withdrew from the case in March 2025. Harper, who continued to appear in the courtroom through the mid-July verdict — leading some to posit that he was coaching Basabe by text — received a pair of $10,000 payments from Basabe’s campaign — one on July 9, the day jury selection began, and another on July 15, the day the jury found the lawmaker liable.”
• “The trial in question spanned three days last month, during which Marsh repeatedly admonished Basabe for referencing subjects and evidence stricken from the case, saying it was ‘staggering how blatant’ the lawmaker violated his directions and threatening to declare a mistrial.”
• “After losing, Basabe hired a new legal team led by Peter Ticktin — a friend of President Donald Trump who represented hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters and pressed for emergency powers to allow Trump broad control over elections — and demanded a new trial or reduced damages. He contended that procedural and evidentiary errors denied him a fair trial.”
• “Myers and Mattox responded to the motion last week, calling it ‘long on page numbers’ but ‘woefully short on specifics,’ arguing that any perceived prejudice Basabe suffered in the trial ‘arose from his decision to represent himself.'”
• “The motion Basabe’s legal team filed Friday says Florida law does not require proof of judicial bias in the case, only that circumstance around the case could cause a reasonable person to fear they could not receive a fair and impartial hearing. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct elaborates on that tenet.”
• “And state law does allow parties to seek disqualification based on a fear that judicial prejudice will prevent a fair trial. However, guidelines published by the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee also state plainly that a lawyer’s contribution to, or work on, a Judge’s campaign does not require the recusal of the Judge when that lawyer appears before them, citing the 1990 Florida Supreme Court decision Mackenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store Inc.”
• “In a more recent case, Cini v. Cabezas (2022), the 3rd District Court of Appeal held that a law firm’s participation as one of 16 hosts of a fundraiser during a Judge’s ongoing re-election campaign did not, without more evidence of potential bias, require recusal. The court emphasized the ‘timing, nature, and extent’ of the lawyers’ participation, contrasting those considerations with cases requiring recusal where the lawyer was the Judge’s campaign Treasurer, co-Chair or an active committee member during a contested campaign.”
• “Of more than 220 donations that Marsh’s campaign listed through Aug. 13, 150 came from lawyers, law firms and lobbying practices, the overwhelming majority of which were based in the Judge’s jurisdiction.”
• “Five men have accused Basabe of sexual impropriety: Frevola, Cutbirth, an unidentified man who claimed during the trial that Basabe drugged and raped him in 2003, a House aide who said Basabe drunkenly pulled him into his bedroom at his Shiloh home and an aide-turned-lobbyist who said in sworn testimony that the lawmaker propositioned him for a threesome.”
• “Basabe, who vowed to resign in 2024 if any of the allegations of sexual impropriety ‘ever prove true,’ has denied any misconduct.”

“Lindberg Wants Special Master DQ’d Amid Restitution Fight” —

• “Billionaire Greg Lindberg wants to disqualify the special master tasked with mapping his assets and recommending restitution in his sweeping fraud case, alleging the special master sold a high-value asset for pennies on the dollar and has been given too much power.”
• “Joseph W. Grier III of Grier Wright Martinez PA, who is serving as special master, is vested with the power to both control Lindberg’s estate and decide his victims’ losses, he said in a motion Friday. He therefore acts as both receiver and judge, which Lindberg argued is unconstitutional. Lindberg also said Grier is compensated for from his estate.”
• “‘An officer paid from the estate he liquidates cannot be the neutral officer who quantifies the victims’ loss,’ Lindberg said.”
• “The insurance mogul, who was sentenced earlier this year to 12 years in federal prison in two separate criminal cases for political corruption and wire fraud, is seeking to have a court order appointing Grier as the special master declared unconstitutional. He also asked that Grier be disqualified and for the court to set aside its report recommending he pay more than $1.6 billion in restitution.”
• “It’s at least the second time Lindberg has sought to boot Grier from his criminal proceedings, following an emergency motion he filed in June seeking to pause all potential sales of his assets.”
• “In his June motion, Lindberg broached disqualifying Grier for alleged broken promises and conflicts involving how he gets paid. He accused Grier of secretly selling off an asset known as Beckett Collectibles LLC without approval, tainting the sentencing process and failing to grant him promised offsets against the total recommended restitution.”
• “Citing ‘independent sources,’ Lindberg argued Beckett was worth roughly $1 billion. But it was sold for $134 million, and Grier has allegedly refused to credit the $866 million loss against the estate’s value, he said.”
• “According to Lindberg, the special master’s entire restitution report is ‘now suspect’ and ‘cannot be relied upon as a whole.'”
• “‘The special master who breached his fiduciary duty — selling a roughly $1 billion asset at thirteen cents on the dollar, without approval and without accounting — cannot be the author of a report that dispossesses Mr. Lindberg of billions of dollars,’ he says.”
• “Lindberg amassed his fortune as the founder and CEO of the private equity firm Eli Global LLC, now known as Global Growth. He has been the subject of two criminal probes for trying to bribe the North Carolina insurance commissioner and orchestrating a $2 billion scheme to defraud insurance companies. Lindberg was convicted by a federal jury in the bribery case and later pled guilty to conspiracy and money laundering charges related to the wire fraud scheme.”