Bressler Risk Blog

“Judicial Ethics Opinion 25-130” —

• “A judge who receives an insurance reserve balance payment from the judge’s former law firm is disqualified for two years from all cases involving the firm. The two-year period commences from the date of payment. The disqualification is subject to remittal.”

“Judicial Ethics Opinion 25-131” —

• “A judge need not disqualify from a case involving child endangerment charges merely because (a) the judge’s child knows the subject child, (b) the judge’s close friend is engaged to a witness in the case, and (c) the judge recently disqualified him/herself in a different case on other grounds.”

“NY judge took vacations with lawyers, was in text thread filled with ‘off-color jokes,’ ‘sexually graphic images’: officials” —

• “A New York judge took Caribbean vacations with a group of attorneys and engaged in a text message chain featuring ‘off-color jokes’ and ‘sexually graphic images’ with them — helping fuel her hasty retirement, court officials said.”
• “Rockland County Supreme Court Justice Sherri Eisenpress agreed to step down on April 28 over multiple alleged conflicts of interest, the state Commission of Judicial Conduct said Monday.”
• “The CJC said Eisenpress failed to disclose her close personal relationships with the group of attorneys, even as she heard their cases in her courtroom, violating laws that judges must be impartial.”
• “The half dozen lawyers argued in front of Eisenpress between 2019 and 2024 — when they all also traveled to the Dominican Republic, Mexico and the Jersey Shore together at various times, according to the commission.”
  he women were also on a text chain at various times titled ‘Punta Cana Partiers,’ Bougie B*tches’ and ‘Queen Dara and Her Loyal Subjects,’ in reference to the court’s principal attorney, who conducts research, analysis and drafts opinion for judges.”
• “‘[Eisenpress] and the members of the group text message chain … shared confidences and discussed and shared social and travel plans and invitations, gossip, photos, off-color jokes, and sexually graphic images,’ the CJC wrote, outlining its misconduct allegations.”
• “The alleged conflicts didn’t stop there for Eisenpress, who went from family court to state Supreme Court justice during her 15 years on the bench.”
• “Eisenpress was accused of presiding over 41 cases involving the law firm of her principal law clerk’s spouse, while declining to acknowledge the ties or to limit the top aide’s work on those cases, the commission said.”
• “She also handled a matrimonial case in which the lawyer for one of the spouses was co-hosting a fundraiser for Eisenpress’ election campaign — and only recused herself after the opposing counsel called her out, according to the commission.”
• “In 2024, Eisenpress allegedly refused to immediately recuse herself from a case in which her law clerk’s husband represented one of the parties, the CJC said. She later stepped aside for unrelated reasons.”
• “Eisenpress lauded her time on the bench in her resignation letter to Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas on Jan. 29.”
• “‘During my tenure, I was mindful of the responsibility that comes with expanding access to justice and strengthening public trust in the court,’ she said.”

“Johnson & Johnson’s Win Boots Beasley Allen from Talc Suits” —

• “Litigation firm Beasley Allen must stop representing plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson over exposure to talc products, a New Jersey state court ruled Friday in a landmark ethics decision.”
• “The ‘prolonged access to J&J’s privileged information, followed by collaborative efforts with its most prominent adversary, leaves us with clear concern for the preservation of trust intrinsic to the attorney-client relationship,’ Superior Court Appellate Division Judge Mark K. Chase wrote Friday.”
• “The ruling validates the pharma giant’s multi-year push to exclude one of the top firms bringing cases in a $22 billion fight over claims that asbestos in talc products contributed to plaintiffs’ vaginal cancer. The parties are awaiting a similar ruling on this issue in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is expected.”
• “‘‘Switching sides’ against a former client does not present a close call—but rather a bright-line ethical prohibition recognized by every court, every ethics authority, and, frankly, every first-year law student,’ Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement.”
• “The appeals court ruled that former Sidley Austin attorney James Conlan ‘associated’ with the Beasley Allen during a mediation over J&J’s bankruptcy plans. Despite Conlan was acting as a nonlawyer on behalf of his mass tort consulting business Legacy Liability Solutions, there was a clear conflict warranting kicking Beasley Allen out of the litigation where it’s one of the top players.”
• “‘It is clear Conlan and Beasley Allen worked together over several months by ‘join[ing] or unit[ing]’ with Conlan for the same common purpose, to have the matter resolved by structural optimization,’ Chase said. ‘Thus, Beasley Allen associated with Legacy and Conlan for purposes’ of New Jersey ethics standards.”
• “Beasley Allen’s lawyer Jeffrey Pollock promised an appeal. Since this is a published opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court is rule-bound to review the decision.”
• “‘We respectfully but vehemently disagree with the Court’s analysis and its conclusions,’ Pollock, managing member of Pollock Law LLC, said in an email. ‘This Opinion re-writes the Rules of Professional Conduct and cannot stand.'”
• “At oral argument in January, J&J said keeping Beasley Allen in the mix would send a broader message to the legal community that there are loopholes: lawyers like Conlan—who had insider information central to J&J’s defense—could somehow find ways to work with the very firms now suing his former client.”
• “Even though the rules aren’t as strict for non-attorneys, the court said this behavior would interfere with clients ability to retain the lawyer of their choosing and entrust them with confidential information.”
• “‘Beasley Allen knowingly collaborated with Conlan on the same issue and in the same litigation that Conlan represented its adversary—J&J. ‘The rules of professional behavior are not branches which bend and sway in the winds of the job market’ but are instead ‘the bedrock of professional conduct,’’ Chase said, quoting state high court precedent.”

“Huitron v. Toby (Ga. 2026): Potential Appellate-Counsel Office Conflicts Require Proof of a Specific, Adversely Affected Appellate Decision” —

• “Huitron v. Toby, Warden arises from Alexandro Huitron’s habeas challenge to his convictions for felony murder and related offenses connected to the death of his three-year-old daughter, Esmerelda Gomez. After the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in Gomez v. State, 301 Ga. 445 (2017), Huitron filed a habeas petition alleging, among other things, that his appellate counsel (John Kraus) labored under a conflict of interest.”
• “The claimed conflict stemmed from office affiliation: Kraus worked in the Clayton County Public Defender’s Office, and that same office represented Huitron’s co-defendant and wife, Margarita Gomez, at their joint trial. Huitron contended that this relationship prevented Kraus from investigating and litigating a more forceful ‘Gomez-did-it’ theory via an ineffective-assistance claim against trial counsel, including by calling Gomez to testify at the motion-for-new-trial stage.”
• “The central legal issue was not whether the office relationship created any professional tension, but whether Huitron proved an actual conflict of interest that significantly and adversely affected appellate counsel’s performance—entitling him to a new, conflict-free direct appeal.”
• “The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the denial of habeas relief. Even assuming a potential conflict existed, the Court held the habeas record supported the finding that the alleged conflict did not significantly and adversely affect Kraus’s appellate representation. Critically, Huitron failed to connect the alleged conflict to a concrete, foregone, potentially meritorious appellate action—such as a specific ineffective-assistance theory that Kraus declined to raise because of divided loyalties.”
• “The Court emphasized that Georgia conflict-of-interest ineffectiveness claims turn on whether the conflict palpably affected performance, not on abstract office relationships or speculative assertions that counsel felt ‘hamstrung.'”

David Kluft asks: “Do I have a duty to Google the opposing party?” —

• “A NJ/MI attorney admitted pro hac vice in E.D. PA brought a 1983 Civil Rights Action against Valley Forge Military Academy on behalf of a student who was expelled following an alleged sexual assault. The problem was that the defendant is obviously not a government actor, so a 1983 action was not appropriate.”
• “Even after the defendant informed him of this, he waited months before amending it into a Title IX claim, in the meantime forcing the defendant to file a motion to dismiss a claim everyone knew was frivolous.”
• “The attorney claimed that the error was not his fault but was the result of his staff checking the wrong box on the intake form. He relied entirely on the intake form rather than doing any research or apparently even meeting with his own client.”
• “The Court held that ‘basic due diligence’ requires at a minimum, ‘having direct contact with the client and conducting a simple Google search’ on the defendant.”
• “Unhappy that the lawyer ‘could not even be bothered to Google search the Defendant,’ the Court further explained how easy it would have been, noting that ‘upon launching Defendant’s website, it becomes immediately apparent that Defendant is a private institution. Indeed, one need not even open their website, as Google’s website preview says as much.'”
• “The Court sanctioned the lawyer over $5k in attorneys’ fees and ordered CLE classes for him and his staff (the sanction was for this misconduct as well as for not sufficiently anonymizing the sexual assault victim’s name). The Court honored his request to sanction him under its inherent authority and not Rule 11 because the lawyer did one thing right – he accepted all the blame and exonerated local counsel.”
• Order: here.

“Kirkland Resignation Highlights Potential Business Conflicts in Big Law Between PE, Company Representations” —

• “Kirkland & Ellis has parted ways with client Optimum Communications after the telecommunications company sued a group of major leveraged finance players for alleged antitrust violations. It’s at least the second time since 2020 that Kirkland has split with a client that was in a feud with the law firm’s larger, more profitable clients in private capital.”
• “The developments highlight the potential business conflicts that any firm can encounter between its company-side representation and private equity representation.”
• “But for Kirkland especially, the stakes are high, with its PE clients providing significant business for the firm and supporting the firm’s rapid growth in the past two decades, helping Kirkland become the largest firm in the world by revenue. At the same time, Kirkland has a large company-side representation practice in restructuring matters, and it’s one of the top firms in representing Chapter 11 debtors.”
• “Kirkland & Ellis didn’t represent Optimum in the antitrust litigation against the leverage finance clients—lawyers at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick did. Kirkland represented Optimum in a transactional matter last year.”
• “However, some members of the creditor group had privately accused Kirkland of being involved in the antitrust lawsuit, according to media reports.”
• “One source familiar with the matter said that accusation may have stemmed from Kirkland debt finance partner David Nemecek’s comments at Bloomberg’s Global Credit Forum last year, where Nemecek raised antitrust concerns over credit market cooperation agreements. Nemecek didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.”
• “The split with Optimum Communications was reported by the Wall Street Journal on Monday. Sources confirmed Kirkland was the party to initiate the split.”
• “In a statement to Law.com, Optimum said: ‘We do not expect this change to affect our ability to engage with our creditors. We remain focused on taking steps to ensure we have a capital structure that supports the long-term health of the business and intend to retain new legal counsel in the near-term.'”
• “While a Kirkland representative didn’t immediately reply to a message seeking comment, a firm representative told the Journal that the firm ‘does not sue clients and did not here’ and had no role in preparing the lawsuit, ‘which was underway before the firm started working for the company.”
• “Rather, the firm ‘did this to dissociate from the lawsuit.’ It also alluded to an increased emphasis on discipline in its liability management practice, which will continue ‘in ways consistent with market practices, in contrast to hyper-aggressive tactics.'”

For more, see: “Star Kirkland & Ellis partner’s future in doubt as firm sides with PE in legal tactics dispute.“

“Double duty by attorney fails to void settlement” —

• “A defendant employer could not extricate itself from an otherwise fair global settlement on the basis that the plaintiffs’ counsel should not have been allowed to represent both a class and individual plaintiffs in litigation against it, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed.”
• “The challenge inherent in simultaneously representing a class and individual plaintiffs is a ‘matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class’ that Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to consider, noted Judge William J. Kayatta Jr., writing for the panel.”
• “The defendant employer argued that the trial judge should have withheld approval of the class action settlement due to what it viewed as the plaintiffs’ counsel’s disqualifying conflict: his duty to maximize recovery for members of the class as well as the three individual plaintiffs.”
• “‘Leading treatises appear to be split on the question of whether counsel may concurrently represent individual plaintiffs and a class against the same defendants,’ Kayatta wrote, adding that the panel had found ‘no on-point case law in this circuit or in others’ addressing such an arrangement.”
• “However, the panel said it was significant that it was not reviewing the decision to appoint class counsel in the first instance under Rule 23(g) but rather whether a class action settlement was properly approved under Rule 23(e)(2).”
• “The inquiry under Rule 23(e)(2) called for a ‘retrospective assessment of counsel’s representation,’ and there was no evidence that the class members had been prejudiced by their attorney pulling double duty, the panel determined.”
• “‘As the district court explained, class counsel’s actual performance offers not a hint of any conflict-induced shortfall in the adequacy of his representation of the class,’ Kayatta wrote.”
• “Not only did the lawyer secure recoveries for each class member that exceeded the total damages they had suffered, but the excess over the actual damages they stood to receive compared favorably to the average excess received by the three individual plaintiffs, the panel pointed out.”
• “The plaintiffs’ attorney had also highlighted his representation of the three individual plaintiffs in the written notice of the settlement that he sent to the 43 class members, and none opted out or voiced any objection, the panel said.”
• “If the settlement were unwound, there was no reason to think the class members would be better off, according to the panel”
• “‘Like the district court, we see no reason why this actual result must be cast aside — at the behest of [the defendants] and without a hint of dissatisfaction from the class itself — merely because there was the potential for a different result that was never realized,’ Kayatta wrote.”
• “The 32-page decision is Mongue v. The Wheatleigh Corporation, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-011-26.”

“Thomson Geer to sell stake in Labor lobby shop TG Public over conflict fears” —

• “[Australia’s Seventh Largest Law Firm] Thomson Geer has decided to sell its stake in a major Labor-aligned lobby group to soothe fears that the pair’s current relationship could endanger the lucrative flow of government work that the national law firm has recently added to its books.”
• “However, the law firm and lobby group will continue to co-operate under a ‘strategic agreement’, a move Thomson Geer hopes will reduce the potential for conflicts of interest when its lawyers represent the Commonwealth, a work stream worth tens of millions to Thomson Geer annually.”
• “‘There are some conflict sensitivities which have caused us reluctantly to divest our stake in TG Public. We’ll continue to collaborate with TG Public but outside those areas,’ Thomson Geer chief executive partner Adrian Tembel said.”
• “The divestment comes after Thomson Geer absorbed the entire Canberra office of rival firm Ashurst last year, adding seven partners who specialise in acting for the federal government and who have transplanted their Commonwealth matters and billings to Thomson Geer.”
• “‘Unfortunately, due to entering the Commonwealth law market very significantly last year through the Ashurst acquisition, we’ve had to reassess our priorities and our conflict position,’ Tembel said. ‘We’ve prioritised the Commonwealth, obviously.'”
• “According to AusTender, a public record of government contracts, Thomson Geer’s most valuable Commonwealth client is the Department of Defence, worth over $10 million in billings for the 2025-26 financial year to date. The firm has also won work from the Australian Submarine Agency, for which it is charging some $2.5 million for legal services.”
• “A slew of Thomson Geer’s ex-Ashurst partners, including Steve McKinney, Sarah Ross-Smith and Angela Summersby, are longtime Canberra favourites in public sector procurement and acquisition matters. TG Public Affairs, meanwhile, has a major roster of defence-sector clients, including German shipbuilder TKMS, US defence firm Northrop Grumman and Swedish contractor Saab.”
• “Representatives of Thomson Geer and TG Public Affairs would not comment on what kinds of conflict sensitivity animated the law firm’s decision to divest.”
  “Thomson Geer’s other major Commonwealth clients include the Department of Finance, which it billed at least $6 million in 2025-26, and the Department of Employment, which is paying the firm $2.5 million. In total, Thomson Geer has signed more than 110 legal services contracts with the Commonwealth in 2025-26 so far, for billings of at least $27 million.”

“New Postmark Rule = New Malpractice Exposure” —

• “For years a postmark would reliably document the date you mailed something, but not anymore. As of December 24, 2025, those glory days have passed due to recent USPS operational changes, and the USPS has formally acknowledged this. These changes create real malpractice exposure anywhere a statute, rule, or agency treats a postmark as proof of timely filing. In response, you should now assume that a postmark may be one or more days late, especially in rural areas, and adjust your internal practices accordingly.”
• “Since 2021, USPS has been consolidating nearly 200 local processing centers into about 60 large regional hubs, while also reducing the number of daily dispatches from local post offices. USPS has now codified in its Domestic Mail Manual that a postmark ‘does not inherently or necessarily align’ with the date a piece of mail was deposited. This is not a small operational tweak; it fundamentally breaks the decades‑long assumption that a postmark is reliable evidence of mailing.”
• “Mail used to be processed locally, often the same day it was dropped off. Now mail from many communities will travel hundreds of miles to a regional processing center before receiving a postmark. In fact, ten states will now have 100% of their mail processed out of state. (e.g., Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Mississippi)”
• “Under the new Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) schedule, post offices more than 50 miles from a processing center now send outgoing mail once per day, typically early morning. Anything dropped off after that cutoff may not begin its journey until the next day.”
• “Taken together, these changes mean a letter dropped off on a Monday afternoon may not be postmarked until Tuesday or Wednesday despite being timely mailed and the postal service acknowledges that this is to now be an expected outcome, not an anomaly.”
• “If a lawyer mails something on time but receives a late postmark, they may still be held responsible for an untimely filing, which means the malpractice exposure from a missed deadline is very real. Making matters worse: rural lawyers and clients are going to be disproportionately affected. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to reduce the risk:”
• “First, make sure that everyone at your firm understands that ‘mailed today’ does not mean ‘postmarked today.'”
• “Second, use electronic filing whenever possible. If something must be sent through the mail, go to the counter and request a hand‑stamped postmark; and never cut it close without first making sure the local post office is going to be open.”
• “Third, consider using a priority mail service that provides tracking and timestamped acceptance.”
• “And finally, if you’d like to know more about the changes USPS has made and the impact on lawyers, I strongly encourage you to read what Brookings has reported at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/when-a-postmark-no-longer-tracks-mailing/ “

“Beyond Confidentiality: The AI Data War Between Law Firms and Clients” —

• “As generative AI transforms the practice of law, an outstanding question remains around who owns and controls the data that fuels these systems. For decades, law firms and corporate legal departments have operated under well-defined boundaries of client confidentiality and work product protection. But as firms begin using AI tools that rely on data aggregation and fine-tuning, those boundaries blur. The value of legal data has shifted from evidentiary substance to strategic infrastructure. Understanding who can use it, and under what circumstances, is now a defining issue of the modern legal industry. “
• “The Core Tension: Clients Own the Data and Firms Create the Work Product. At its simplest, data powering legal AI falls into two categories: ‘client’ data and law firm-generated data. Clients own their underlying information, such as contracts, discovery documents, communications, transaction details, and case files, and output/deliverables from outside counsel that clients have paid for. Law firms, on the other hand, may own derived work product such as drafts, research notes, and summaries, though those too may be governed by confidentiality and professional conduct rules. “
• “This distinction matters because many law firm AI use cases like contract review, litigation analytics, due diligence, and e-discovery depend on training or otherwise using (e.g., for fine tuning) large language models (LLMs) and/or retrieval augmented generation (RAG) code with a mixture of both deliverables to the client and internal work product. “
• “If a law firm builds or fine-tunes an AI model using client data, it could inadvertently violate client confidentiality or intellectual property rights unless expressly permitted.In contrast, in-house legal departments that sit closer to the data source often view that same dataset as a corporate asset. “
• “They are more likely to want to use their data to train proprietary AI tools that enhance decision-making, risk prediction, or portfolio management. So, the questions emerge: can both the law firm and the client use the same data to train AI models? What happens if they both do? Is enforcement possible? Probable? The answers may depend less on technology and more on contract language. ”
  The Contractual Layer: What Provisions Matter “
• “The key provisions that govern data use in AI are scattered across several types of documents. These typically include engagement letters, outside counsel guidelines (OCGs), vendor and cloud agreements, and AI pilot or development agreements. “
• “Engagement letters and OCGs set baseline terms around confidentiality, data retention, and use of client information. Increasingly, OCGs include explicit prohibitions on uploading client data into AI systems that might use the data to train underlying models. ”
  “Vendor and cloud agreements determine whether data is stored in private environments, whether it leaves a specified jurisdiction, and whether it may be used to train or improve the provider’s services. AI pilot or development agreements typically define who owns derivative outputs and improvements. “
• “Key clauses to watch include data ownership and license-back rights, use restrictions, and confidentiality and anonymization standards.”
• “Law firms often assume that anonymization resolves the data ownership and usage concerns. After stripping identifiers or aggregating data, many believe the resulting dataset can be freely used for internal AI training. In reality, anonymization is a moving target and does not automatically remove client-sensitivity or eliminate contractual restrictions. Even when direct identifiers are removed, matters can remain re-identifiable, particularly when (1) the underlying dispute is public, (2) the dataset is small or unique, or (3) the fact patterns themselves function as identifiers. As a result, anonymized data does not guarantee firm ownership or unrestricted reuse unless the client agreement expressly allows it. “
• “A better lens is data governance, where processing occurs within a firm-controlled or vendor segregated cloud instance under contractual guarantees that client data will not train external foundation models. It is crucial to note that most current enterprise-grade tools do not use inputs to improve their base models and maintain strict data-isolation controls. Firms must leverage security documentation (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, DPAs, DPAs with model-training exclusions, and environment architecture diagrams) from vendors to dispel this persistent confidentiality concern. This distinction separates technical reality from common client fear. The safest path ultimately relies on consent and transparency, moving beyond reliance on de-identification alone. This means clearly documenting: (1) how data will be used, (2) where it is stored and processed, (3) whether it remains in a single-tenant or region-locked environment, and (4) confirming that no third-party model training or cross-matter data blending occurs. This governance-first approach substantially mitigates risk. “
• “Even with clear rules, enforcement is tricky. How can a client verify that its data isn’t being used to train a firm’s internal or vendor model? And how can firms prevent well-intentioned employees from inadvertently breaching these boundaries through tool usage? “
• “Policing this requires a combination of technical controls (segmented instances, audit logs, and data usage dashboards) and contractual accountability (attestations, audit rights, and breach remedies). “
• “Firms should implement governance layers that track which datasets are used to fine-tune models, who authorized their use, and whether consent was obtained. From the client’s side, periodic audits or certifications, such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001 attestations, can provide assurance that their data remains quarantined from model improvement cycles. “

“Law firms in Canada need to collaborate on a vendor-neutral cybersecurity framework” —

• “What am I doing about it? What could we do about it? And who is actually doing anything right now? These were the questions I kept asking myself in the summer of 2025. I was working inside one of the world’s largest law firms, assessing our cybersecurity practices against well-known information security frameworks. The deeper we went, the clearer it became that the legal sector is not where it needs to be. Not because people don’t care or leadership isn’t paying attention, but because almost every firm is trying to solve this problem on its own.”
• “That is the core issue. Cybersecurity in law is still treated as a firm-specific project, when in reality it affects the entire profession.”
• “Firms don’t work in isolation. We work together on matters. We exchange sensitive files with opposing counsel. We rely on shared platforms, vendors, and cloud infrastructure. If one firm is hit, clients don’t say, ‘Oh well, that was just that firm.’ They question how legal data is protected holistically. That is where the real risk lies.”
• “Most firms I’ve spoken to are acting: buying tools, tightening policies, hiring consultants, conducting training, and commissioning assessments. But they are doing all of this in silos. There is no shared baseline. No commonly accepted definition of what ‘good’ looks like for a Canadian law firm – or, frankly, for any law firm.”
• “According to 2024 IBISWorld data, Canada has roughly 35,000 law firms of varying sizes. They hold highly sensitive client data but typically lack cybersecurity teams, threat intelligence functions, and security engineers. They are data-rich and resource-poor – and attackers are aware of this.”
• “The risk is not theoretical. In 2024, a Florida law firm faced a class action after a breach exposed client information. The firm reportedly settled for US$8.5 million, becoming one more example in a growing list of law firms targeted by ransomware and data theft.”
• “Meanwhile, Canadian law firms are increasingly interdependent. We share clients, documents, systems – and, critically, risks. A compromise in one environment can easily spread to another, particularly in a digitized and interconnected ecosystem.”
• “This leads to a simple question: if we are all connected, why are we defending ourselves separately?”
• “We do have organizations in the legal technology space. ILTA exists. The Canadian Bar Association has groups. Provincial law societies publish guidance. But none of these bodies solves the collaboration problem.”
• “ILTA, for example, is excellent but paywalled and primarily serves medium and large firms that can afford the fees. No single group reaches the thousands of small and mid-sized firms that make up the majority of Canada’s legal market. And none provides truly actionable, operational ‘knowledge and skills’ that firms can plug into their day-to-day work.”
• “Instead, we end up with scattered pockets of collaboration, mostly among well-resourced firms, while the majority are left to fend for themselves. That divide is precisely where the collective risk sits – and where bad actors thrive.”
• “Confidentiality is the foundation of the profession. But it does not stop at one firm’s firewall.”
• “If one firm in a multi-firm matter is breached, everyone is exposed. If one firm transmits compromised files through a shared DMS or client portal, everyone is exposed. If a small firm working on a high-stakes matter is compromised, the fallout can affect clients, courts, regulators – even governments.”
• “Clients already understand this. Many in-house legal teams now assess the cybersecurity posture of external counsel before engaging them. Insurers are tightening their requirements, and audits are becoming more frequent. Firms of every size, including solo practitioners, are expected to have reasonable safeguards and a working incident response plan.”
• “The pressure is here. The risk is real. The only question is whether the profession responds collectively or continues to duplicate effort and go it alone.”

“Investors Lament ‘Anti-Foreign’ Litigation Funding Push in US” —

• “Federal legislation targeting foreigners who invest in US lawsuits is raising concerns among international financiers. The bill by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) bans sovereign wealth funds from backing US litigation, potentially disrupting operations of funders such as Fortress Investment Group, Burford Capital, Omni Bridgeway, Ares Management Corp., Ellington Management Group and BlackRock Inc.”
• “Funders that lack sovereign wealth backing would also be affected. The Cline bill requires overseas investors to disclose their roles in US lawsuits, which the funders say could delay court proceedings as defendants seek information about them in discovery.”
• “The emphasis on foreign funders is an approach by the US Chamber of Commerce and other opponents of litigation finance to stymie the nascent industry. The legislation has sparked an intense lobbying campaign in the new year, with a pro-industry lobbying group forming after the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-11 in November to recommend the bill.”
• “The practice of investing in lawsuits with the hope of winning proceeds from successful cases has become popular for financiers, who seek returns uncorrelated to the stock market. The litigation funding market is expected to grow to around $50 billion by the mid-2030s from nearly $21 billion last year, according to a report from boutique asset management firm Katch Investment Group.”
• “The threat of US legislation has forced some foreign fund managers to reassess their growth strategies. ‘This lack of certainty and safety it is not helping anybody to feel happy about investing in the USA,’ said Ignacio Delgado, the general counsel for Loopa Finance, formerly known as Qanlex, which doesn’t currently fund US litigation and primarily operates in Latin America and Europe.”
• “The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control already restricts investment from countries of concern such as Iran and Russia, ‘so why do you need more law?’ asked Susan Dunn, founder of UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding.”
• “‘There’s so much anti-foreign that’s going on in the US at the moment,’ said Dunn, who also chairs the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales. From US lawmakers’ perspective, ‘it’s like if I use the ‘foreign’ word then that’ll get me’ bill passage.”
  Cline’s Momentum”
• “Cline’s proposal is the second version of legislation that singles out foreign funding. After the House panel passage it is the farthest along of three federal bills attempting to regulate litigation finance. The Chamber and other industry opponents have pressed for regulation because they say litigation finance results in frivolous lawsuits that raise the cost of doing business.”

“Lawyer for accused drug trafficking boxer Goran Gogic challenges bid to throw him off the case” —

• “Joseph Corozzo Jr., the lawyer for boxer Goran Gogic, says he shouldn’t be spiked from the pugilist’s drug trafficking case based on ‘baseless’ jury tampering and witness intimidation allegations — arguing that the feds have been trying to get him since the 1990s.”
• “Corozzo Jr. — son of the late reputed Gambino crime family consigliere Joseph (Jo Jo) Corozzo — laid out his argument in a court filing Friday, two weeks after federal prosecutors called him a ‘subject’ of a criminal investigation and moved to have his firm disqualified from Gogic’s case.”
• “Corozzo’s co-counsel Angela Lipsman pushed back in a letter to Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Joan Azrack Friday.”
• “‘If being the subject of a criminal investigation barred Mr. Corozzo from representing defendants, his decades-long legal career would have been stunted in its infancy as the FBI’s fruitless attempts to find evidence of him engaging in racketeering date all the way back to the 1990s, when [law firm] Rubinstein & Corozzo was only a few years old,’ she wrote, in a letter co-signed by Corozzo.”
• “Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have repeatedly sought to prevent Corozzo from representing mob defendants over the decades.”
• “Prosecutors in 2005 tried to spike Corozzo from the murder and racketeering trial of Gambino captain Dominick Pizzonia, citing his status as Gambino ‘house counsel,’ his loyalty to his father and his uncle, Nicholas ‘Nicky’ Corozzo, and contending he was a subject in two separate criminal probes.”
• “The feds contended in court filings that Corozzo was once proposed for induction into the Gambino crime family in 2000, but then-Bonanno family boss Joseph Massino, who famously turned cooperator, ‘withheld his approval on the grounds that he believed attorneys should not be permitted to become full-time members of La Cosa Nostra.'”
  Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Jack Weinstein kept him on the case.”
• “The government managed to get Brooklyn Federal Judge John Gleeson to agree to block Corozzo from representing reputed Gambino soldier Gaetano Napoli Sr. at trial in a 2010 fraud case, after the lawyer faced a witness-tampering probe. Napoli pleaded guilty before the case went to trial, though.”
• “‘Neither the FBI’s prior investigation of Mr. Corozzo for racketeering nor the alleged ongoing investigation for obstruction of justice is going to impair our zealous advocacy of Mr. Gogic in any way,’ Lipsman wrote.”
• “Gogic’s trial was cast into disarray in November, when the FBI uncovered an alleged plot to bribe a juror with $100,000 the weekend before opening statements.”
• “After a probe, the feds said they found protected legal documents, including a photo of a witness’s daughter, in Gogic’s cell in the MDC Brooklyn jail, and detailed instances of apparent witness intimidation in the runup to the trial, according to court filings.”
• “The defense team contended that it didn’t intentionally leave any protected documents with Gogic, though some pages might have inadvertently been mixed in with the reams of nonprotected documents the law firm brought during jail visits.”
• “Gogic faces charges he played a key role in an operation that trafficked more than 20 tons of cocaine through U.S. ports.”

“Ex-MSG Worker Says DQ Attempt Is ‘Clear Misdirection’” —

• “A former employee pursuing wrongful firing claims against Madison Square Garden Entertainment has asked a New York federal judge to reject the company’s request to remove his counsel based on his potential need to testify, arguing that key facts are available from other sources and his lawyer will not need to take the stand.”
• “In an opposition brief filed Friday, Donald Ingrasselino said MSG’s attempt to boot his attorney Ethan M. Krasnoo and his firm Reavis Page Jump LLP from the suit was ‘a clear misdirection of the court’s energy and resources from the real disputes at play.'”
• “Even if there were grounds to disqualify Krasnoo, doing so would cause substantial hardship for Ingrasselino, he further argued, because MSG’s reputation made it difficult to find any lawyer willing to represent him.”
• “Of five lawyers he contacted, four declined to take the case ‘because of defendants’ reputation in litigation and their lawyer ban imposed on lawyers at firms that sue MSG from attending their venues (through exclusion by use of facial recognition software),’ he said.”
• “Ingrasselino sued MSG and Chief Security Officer John Eversole in September. In the complaint, he said he was hired as senior director of security for Tao Group, which was owned by MSG, in 2021, and he was fired in 2024 after allegedly enduring hostile working conditions, discrimination based on his age and disability, and retaliation.”
• “Ingrasselino is now fighting a motion to disqualify filed in November alongside a motion to dismiss. According to the defendants, Krasnoo’s testimony is integral to the majority of Ingrasselino’s claims, as Krasnoo communicated directly with the company after Ingrasselino was fired, particularly over the disputed mediation agreement.”
• “MSG called the suit a ‘desperate’ attempt to get media attention, arguing the claims should be thrown out. It denied Ingrasselino’s allegations, saying he was fired for breaching company policy by moonlighting as a security guard and not responding to emails in a timely manner.”
• “On Friday, Ingrasselino told the court that MSG and Eversole’s argument for disqualification comes down to a single phone call, which was later memorialized in an email between Krasnoo and former MSG counsel Kevin Leblang that has already been provided as evidence.”
• “‘The remainder of Krasnoo’s communications to Leblang are short, unambiguous written statements provided in emails, which speak for themselves,’ Ingrasselino said in the brief. ‘The existence of these emails and other documentary evidence should be all the court needs to assess the related legal claims, but should testimony be required regarding the terms and performance of the parties’ agreement to mediate, which is highly unlikely, it can be obtained from [the] plaintiff and defendant MSG’s own witnesses.'”

“Practus Faces DQ Bid In Lacrosse Glove Patent Fight” —

• “Sporting goods company STX LLC has asked a Delaware federal court to disqualify Practus LLP and one of its attorneys from representing competitor StringKing Inc. in a patent infringement case related to lacrosse gloves, arguing that the firm has a conflict of interest.”
• “In a filing on Monday [1/5] in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, STX asserted that Practus should be barred from representing StringKing because one of its partners previously represented an STX affiliate in the prosecution of an application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that ‘matured into’ the patent in suit.”
• “‘This side-switching places Practus on the opposite side of the same matter and triggers an unwaivable former-client conflict’ under ethical rules, STX argued.”
• “In an answer to STX’s patent infringement complaint, StringKing has asserted counterclaims ‘full of vitriol and unfounded allegations against STX and its patent prosecution counsel,’ including ‘claims related to inequitable conduct, invalidity, false marking and unfair competition,’ the filing said.”
• “Those claims are ‘based on supposed fraudulent actions taken at the [USPTO], including during prosecution of the asserted patent’ by S. Scott Lloyd, who is now a partner at Practus, STX said.”
• “‘Because StringKing now attacks that same patent, Mr. Lloyd’s conflict is imputed to every lawyer at Practus, and no ethical screen can cure it,’ STX argued.”
• “STX contends that Practus and its partner Jesse Camacho should be barred from representing StringKing in the case ‘to protect STX’s confidences, preserve the integrity of these proceedings and maintain public confidence in the bar.'”
• “Since he prosecuted the application related to the patent at issue in the litigation, Lloyd ‘accessed confidential information concerning claim strategy, inventor communications, prosecution history positions and patent scope, all of which bear directly on infringement, validity, enforceability and damages issues in this litigation,’ STX said.”
• “His access to STX’s confidential information regarding the patent at issue ‘could be used to STX’s detriment here,’ the company said.”
• “Practus and Camacho should be disqualified per an ethics rule that prohibits a lawyer from representing another client in ‘a substantially related matter’ in a way that is materially adverse to the interests of a former client, STX said.”
• “That is the case in this instance, STX said, as Lloyd had an attorney-client relationship with its affiliate and Practus now represents StringKing, which has interests that ‘are materially adverse to STX.'”
• “‘The only question is whether the current matter is the same or substantially related to Mr. Lloyd’s prior representation,’ STX said. ‘It is, and it is not a close question.'”
• “Given StringKing’s counterclaims, Camacho is now ‘in the posture of accusing his own partner’s prosecution conduct of being fraudulent, creating a direct and unwaivable conflict that threatens the integrity of these proceedings,’ STX asserted.”
• “STX alleges that StringKing’s Flyer 1 lacrosse glove infringes ‘on one or more of the claims of the ‘930 patent.'”
• “But in its counterclaims, StringKing argues that the patent is invalid ‘for incorrect inventorship’ and unenforceable for multiple reasons, including that misrepresentations were made to the Patent and Trademark Office during the application process.”

“Supreme Court removes recalled judge amid bar group complaints about column, podcast” —

• “The Illinois Supreme Court on Monday rescinded its decision to return a retired Cook County judge to the bench, where he was to help address a backlog of cases. Judge James R. Brown was one of seven retired circuit court judges from Cook, Will, and Pope counties who were recalled last month to help address a judge shortage in Cook County by handling cases in the high-volume traffic division.”
• “In late December, two local bar associations petitioned the state’s highest court to reverse Brown’s recall. Brown had served as a judge for 18 years and received endorsements from every bar group in the county during his tenure, including both organizations that sought his removal.”
• “Early Monday morning, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order rescinding Brown’s reappointment without elaboration.”
• “The Cook County Bar Association, which identifies itself as the nation’s oldest bar association of Black lawyers and judges, announced its opposition to Brown’s appointment in December, citing a column he authored in September for John Kass News, a news and commentary website run by former longtime Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.”
• “The association alleged Brown’s column and a subsequent appearance on Kass’ podcast violated the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. According to the state, the code sets standards for the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. Brown’s supporters noted that he was neither a judge nor a judicial candidate when the column and podcast were published.”
• “In his column, Brown argued there was ‘renewed faith in the American justice system’ following what he characterized as an era of political ‘lawfare’ and ‘progressive prosecutors’ who ‘blatantly violated their oath to uphold the law.'”
• “In seeking Brown’s removal, the bar association objected to multiple passages from the column, titled ‘His Judgement Cometh and That Right Soon,’ including assertions that ‘justice awaits those who brazenly and viciously demonized the 77 million Trump supporters’ and that ‘accountability, in one form or another, is coming to the George Soros-funded progressive prosecutors who waged lawfare against President Trump.'”
• “The group also cited other portions of the column, including references to a United States Supreme Court nominee who ‘could not articulate the definition of ‘woman’ at her confirmation hearing’ and an assertion that ‘American citizens have been senselessly murdered by illegal aliens.'”
• “In a statement approved by its executive committee, the Cook County Bar Association said Brown’s writing ‘undermines confidence in the entire justice system’ and ‘erodes confidence, promotes harmful and divisive discourse, and damages the respect for our justice system.'”
• “In 2014, the last time Brown ran for retention, every bar association in the county recommended him for retention. The Chicago Council of Lawyers, which is now calling for his removal, said he was ‘considered to be a diligent judge with a good demeanor. He is reported to be prompt in starting his call, and is praised for being fair to all parties. The Council finds him Qualified for retention to his current position.'”