Bressler Risk Blog

“Quinn Emanuel Faces DQ Bid For Musk-Dogecoin Deal Leak” —

• “Dogecoin investors want Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP to be disqualified in their case against Elon Musk and Tesla Inc. because the law firm and its attorneys publicly disclosed a confidential settlement offer in the contentious lawsuit.”
• “In a document filed in New York federal court Thursday, an attorney for the plaintiffs asked that the firm and its lawyers be disqualified and sanctioned after submitting the letter to the official court docket. Because of Quinn Emanuel’s actions, the plaintiffs are asking for $350,000 in sanctions, damages and legal fees.”
• “‘By these ethical violations, Alex Spiro, his co-counsel Sarah Concannon and Brenna Nelinson, and Quinn Emanual have demonstrated a willingness to fight dirty that threatens to significantly taint the trial of this case,’ the plaintiffs said.”
• “In the underlying case, the plaintiffs allege that Musk, Tesla’s CEO, engaged in market manipulation that allowed him and the company to turn a profit on Dogecoin, a meme-themed cryptocurrency.”
• “The two sides have been slugging it out in court since the plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in June 2022, including previous motions to disqualify each other’s attorneys that U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied in December.”
• “Hellerstein disposed of the spat, which has spanned several months and hundreds of pages of back-and-forth legal filings between plaintiff attorney Evan Spencer and his opponents. The judge also granted Musk and Tesla’s request to dismiss the proposed class action complaint while leaving the door open to refiling it after it has received some editing.”
• “Quinn Emanuel, Musk and Tesla claimed the lawsuit was so riddled with obvious legal and factual errors that it should be thrown out.”
• “On the other side, Spencer and the investors accused Quinn Emanuel of leaking a letter Spiro, who is representing Tesla and Musk, sent to Spencer — and that harshly criticized the lawsuit — to the New York Post. They later filed an amended complaint to revive the lawsuit.”
• “‘Mr. Spencer was alerted to the article by one of his clients in this case and needed to perform considerable damage control. Both parties then moved for sanctions, and the Court denied both motions, but stated that it would address the issue again if private materials were made public in the future,’ according to Thursday’s filing.”

“‘It’s created an internal shitstorm’: turmoil at UK law firm accused of ‘whitewashing’ Saudi World Cup report” —

• “When the Saudi crown prince locked nearly 400 of his country’s most powerful people in a luxury hotel in 2017 and stripped them of their fortunes, a UK law firm allegedly played a significant role.”
• “On the orders of Mohammed bin Salman, Clifford Chance – a ‘magic circle’ legal giant with headquarters in London – was reported to have facilitated the forced transfer of assets from a Saudi TV station to the government. In total, assets worth $100bn were taken from the detainees, who included political rivals of Prince Mohammed. Some were allegedly beaten, deprived of sleep and held in stress positions.”
• “Seven years on from the infamous purge at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh, Clifford Chance – whose global revenues rose 9% to £2.3bn in the last financial year – has expanded in Saudi Arabia to become an ‘unrivalled legal powerhouse’, according to its website. It boasts large government clients, including key ministries and the sovereign public investment fund. In 2023, after a legal change, its Saudi arm, AS&H Clifford Chance – a joint venture with a local firm – became one of the first foreign firms approved to practise law.”
• “Only last month, it was named Saudi law firm of the year at a glitzy awards ceremony in Dubai.”
• “Now the firm’s long-running links to the Saudi regime are facing scrutiny after it was commissioned to produce an ‘independent’ assessment of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record as part of the country’s bid to host the 2034 Fifa World Cup – a report that has been roundly condemned as a ‘whitewash’.”
• “The Observer understands that at least one other law firm approached to conduct the assessment refused because of reputational concerns and fears over conflicts of interest.”
• “But the Saudi arm of Clifford Chance – whose recent work also includes overseeing a multibillion-pound football stadium deal for two clubs in the Saudi Pro League – agreed. The appointment is understood to have been signed off by Fifa, world football’s governing body.”
• “Required as part of Fifa’s bidding process, the assessment was supposed to give an independent and unbiased picture of the human rights context in the kingdom. UN guiding principles, which Fifa says it abides by, say such assessments should ‘include all internationally recognised human rights as a reference point’.”
• “But documents seen by the Observer show that AS&H Clifford Chance agreed to severely limit the scope of its report after a request from the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (Saff), which again was approved by Fifa.”
• “The restrictions mean the report only looked at human rights that are recognised in Saudi Arabia – rather than those recognised globally – and were considered relevant by the Saudi football federation.”
• “Across 39 pages, there is no mention of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in Saudi Arabia, the criminalisation of same-sex sexual activity, controls on freedom of expression and the prohibition of trade unions or forced evictions, such as during construction of the mega-city Neom. In the methodology notes for the report, AS&H Clifford Chance says the scope was ‘determined by Saff in agreement with Fifa’. The notes also reveal the review was completed after only six weeks of desk work and relied solely on interviews with government ministries. Human rights groups and those affected by alleged abuses, such as migrant workers, were not consulted.”
• “The firm is known for its pro bono and human rights work, and one of its partners co-chairs the Business and Human Rights Lawyers Association. But according to people familiar with the assessment, key staff with relevant expertise were not consulted. ‘It’s created an internal shitstorm,’ a source said.”
• “Another said: ‘It’s a shoddy piece of work. It would have been a mistake for anyone credible to take on this task given the parameters were scoped so narrowly. Given the conditions attached, there was no way to do it in an ethical way.'”
  “The revelations also risk undermining the firm’s pledge to champion LGBTQ rights. In 2023, Clifford Chance was ranked as one of the world’s best LGBT employers in Stonewall’s global workplace equality index, which recognises organisations that have ‘taken steps to advance LGBT equality across their global locations’.”
• “The fallout also raises wider questions for Fifa about the integrity of Saudi Arabia’s World Cup bid as a vote to confirm the kingdom as 2034 host approaches… It declined to comment on the Clifford Chance report but said it planned to publish an evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s bid, including the human rights assessment, before the congress meeting.”

“DLA Piper Exhibited ‘Far From Exemplary Conduct’ in Patent Infringement Case, Judge Finds” —

• “A federal judge has ruled that DLA Piper can continue representing a plaintiff in a patent infringement dispute even though the firm also counsels the defendant’s parent company, in a case that could have implications for Big Law when it comes to identifying and disclosing conflicts of interest.”
• “In an October 23 decision, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, of the District of Delaware, agreed with a report by a special master that recommended denying a defense motion to disqualify DLA Piper as plaintiffs’ counsel. But the judge also admonished DLA Piper for its ‘far from exemplary conduct’ in handling the matter.”
• “The motion for disqualification was made by Nick Groombridge, an attorney representing defendant TeneoBio Inc., a biotech company, which sought to disqualify DLA Piper from being adverse to it in the patent infringement litigation because TeneoBio is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen, which acquired TeneoBio in October 2021.”
• “DLA Piper represents the plaintiffs, who include Harbour Antibodies BV, another biotech company.”
• “The special master, also a former federal judge from Delaware, had found that DLA Piper’s representation of Amgen in unrelated matters didn’t automatically mean that DLA Piper also represents TeneoBio, the subsidiary. She had found that the record was unclear as to whether DLA Piper’s representation of Amgen included representation of its affiliates.”
• “However, the special master later determined that DLA Piper’s representation of Harbour against TeneoBio in the current litigation appears likely conflictual, although she found that the conflict was ‘thrust upon’ DLA Piper because the conflict didn’t exist at the time DLA Piper agreed to represent Harbour in the litigation.”
• “While the judge affirmed the special master’s recommendations, and permitted DLA Piper to continue with its representation of the plaintiff, she noted in her opinion that the burden of proving the ‘thrust upon’ doctrine rests with the party possessing the conflict—in this case, the plaintiffs—and not TeneoBio, as the special master had found.”
• “The judge noted that case law on the ‘thrust upon’ doctrine is fairly sparse, although she found that ‘similar legal frameworks as well as other district courts’ applications of the ‘thrust upon’ doctrine support the conclusion that it was DLA’s burden to prove the ‘thrust upon’ doctrine applied.'”
• “‘We don’t think it’s appropriate for law firms to say, ‘Well, even though I represent you, I could sue your subsidiary,” said Nicholas Groombridge, who represents TeneoBio. ‘I think that the ruling here is very much a recognition of that right,'”
• “Given increased M&A activity in the corporate world, this scenario may become more common since ‘there just aren’t that many players in some industries,’ Groombridge said.”
• “In her ruling, Noreika wrote that DLA Piper cannot benefit from the ‘thrust upon’ doctrine because the conflict did not arise through no fault of the law firm, but rather the ‘representation of adverse interests occurred when [DLA] investigated, drafted, and filed the complaint in this case.'”
• “‘It is evident DLA knew that its representation of Harbour could materially impact its client, Amgen, because DLA wrote in the complaint for this action that Amgen had acquired TeneoBio for ‘more than $2.5 billion,’ Noreika wrote. ‘Although it is true that a lawyer is not per se prohibited from representing a party adverse to the subsidiary of a corporate client, the duties of loyalty and confidentiality require that the lawyer take affirmative steps to ensure that the line has not been crossed.'”

“Blank Rome Faces DQ Bid Over Alleged Tampering” —

• “An attorney suing three lawyers from Blank Rome LLP wants the firm’s other attorneys disqualified from representing their colleagues, accusing them of improperly contacting a plaintiff’s expert witness to intimidate him into no longer participating in the case.”
• “Plaintiffs Veronica Turner, a lawyer, and her husband, Kevin Turner, moved to disqualify Blank Rome attorneys Thursday [9/26] from representing their colleagues James T. Smith, Rebecca Ward and Heidi G. Crikelair. Veronica Turner also asked a Pennsylvania federal court for sanctions against the attorneys for their interactions with expert witness Dr. Richard S. Goldberg.”
• “‘The improper contacts with Dr. Goldberg require severe sanctions, particularly if (as it appears at the time of this writing) they have caused Dr. Goldberg to cease his involvement in this matter and left plaintiff without a psychiatric expert,’ Turner said Thursday in her motion.”
• “The attorneys Turner is seeking to have tossed from the suit are Brian Paszamant and Jeffrey Rosenthal, as well as Blank Rome itself, according to the motion.”
• “Turner is suing the three lawyers as well as aircraft motor manufacturer Avco and its parent company, Textron Inc., for retaliation after she switched from corporate defense to the plaintiffs bar. She previously represented Avco Corp.’s Lycoming Engines division in ‘major aircraft crash litigation,’ representation that had lasted from 2005 through November 2017.”
• “Goldberg is a psychiatrist who was retained to perform a forensic psychiatric examination of Turner. She argued that counsel for the three attorneys contacted Goldberg, left him a voicemail and even spoke to his office about the status of Turner’s case file.”
• “Turner said her attorneys were not advised of the contacts with Goldberg. Additionally, Turner argued that Blank Rome served Goldberg with an invalid short-notice subpoena.”
• “Since then, Turner’s team has tried several times to schedule a deposition with Goldberg, but he’s stopped responding to them.”
• “‘Plaintiffs believe the aforesaid ex parte contacts with Dr. Goldberg were intended to intimidate him and to drive him to cease his involvement in the instant case. They regrettably appear to have succeeded,’ the motion said.”

“WEBINAR: 2024 Legal Ethics Year in Review” —

• Thursday, December 12, 2024 @ 1 PM ET
• “Join Holland & Knight and our colleagues with Adams and Reese for a free one-hour review of the most important developments of the last year (or so) in legal ethics and lawyering.”
• “They will distill practical guidance from ethics opinions and case law from all over and review what lawyers should know to protect their clients and themselves and practice more effectively.”
• Topics will include:
  • New Law developments and lawyer regulatory reform
  • Ethical (and unethical) witness preparation
  • The latest cases on advance waivers of conflicts of interest
  • The first lawyers disciplined for falling for wire transfer frauds
  • Ethical (or unethical) deception in investigations
  • Using artificial intelligence (AI) ethically and responsibly
  • Continuing lawyer cybersecurity dangers
• Lucian and Trish promise more ethics fun in an hour than lawyers should be allowed to have.

“Nelson Mullins Can’t Beat DQ In Foreign Exchange Fraud Suit” —

• “A Florida state appeals court panel unanimously sided with a trial court Friday in deciding that Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP can’t represent the defendant in a lawsuit accusing him of duping the plaintiff into doing business with online foreign exchange platform FxWinning Ltd. because the firm previously represented the plaintiff in a ‘substantially related’ suit against the company.”
• “Jay Katari was represented by Nelson Mullins when he and others sued now-defunct Hong Kong-based FxWinning in Miami-Dade County in 2023 for allegedly defrauding them out of more than $80 million, according to case filings. In a separate lawsuit he later filed in Palm Beach County, Katari sued Arthur Percy, whom he accused of fraudulently inducing him to do business with FxWinning.”
• “Percy hired Nelson Mullins to defend him in the Palm Beach case, prompting Katari to seek the law firm’s disqualification based on its prior representation of him in the Miami-Dade case.”
• “‘The present action and the prior action are undeniably substantially related, as the fraudulent scheme that lies at the heart of the prior action is also central to the present action: Katari has alleged that Percy fraudulently induced Katari into investing significant amounts of money with FxWinning,’ Katari argued in a June filing with the Florida appeals court. ‘Simply put, the present action alleges that Percy induced Katari to enter into the contract with FxWinning which gave rise to the prior action. Disqualification was the proper remedy.'”
• “Nelson Mullins had argued that the case in Miami-Dade County was based on FxWinning’s terms and conditions and that it was unrelated to an agreement between Katari and Percy. The law firm further argued that Katari had participated in discovery in the Palm Beach case and thus had waived any objection to Nelson Mullins’ representation of Percy.”

New from The Supreme Court of California on judicial disqualification motions and timeliness: “NORTH AMERICAN TITLE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT S280752” —

• “This case requires us to interpret various statutes governing the disqualification of judges. In particular, we consider what we refer to as a timeliness requirement set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (c)(1) (section 170.3(c)(1)),1 and a nonwaiver provision set forth in section 170.3, subdivision (b)(2) (section 170.3(b)(2)).”
• “The timeliness requirement of section 170.3(c)(1) provides that a party who seeks to disqualify a trial court judge by filing a verified statement of disqualification must do so ‘at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification.’ “
• “The nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) provides that, notwithstanding a party’s general ability to waive a disqualification, ‘[t]here shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefor’ falls into one of two categories, one of which is that ‘[t]he judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party’ (§ 170.3, subd. (b)(2)(A)).”
• “‘We granted review to decide whether the nonwaiver provision precludes application of the timeliness requirement when a party alleges that a judge is disqualified due to bias or prejudice concerning a party. The Court of Appeal held that it does.'”
• “According to the Court of Appeal, the nonwaiver provision must be read ‘to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.’ (Id. at p. 982.) Under the court’s reading of the statute, a party alleging bias or prejudice cannot ‘waive[]’ its right to seek judicial disqualification (ibid.), even when the claim is asserted long past the point of ‘discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification’ and, for that reason, is not required to assert its claim of judicial bias ‘at the earliest practicable opportunity.'”
• “We disagree with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the statute. It conflates the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, and it extends the statute’s prohibition on waiver to scenarios where forfeiture based on failure to comply with the timeliness requirement may properly be found.”
• “We thus agree with appellants and Real Parties in Interest Carolyn Cortina et al. (Real Parties in Interest) that the nonwaiver provision is limited to the process of judicial self- disqualification, and it is inapplicable when a party seeks disqualification by filing a written verified statement of disqualification.”
• “When a party seeks disqualification, the statute’s timeliness requirement contemplates that the litigant may forfeit the right to seek disqualification by failing to file a statement of disqualification ‘at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification.’ (§ 170.3(c)(1).) The statute’s nonwaiver provision has no effect on the separate issue of forfeiture in this context.”
• “We therefore hold section 170.3(c)(1)’s timeliness requirement — that a statement of disqualification filed by a party ‘shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity’ — applies even when the alleged basis for disqualification is that ‘[t]he judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party’ (§ 170.3, subd. (b)(2)(A)). On this basis, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remand the case for that court to consider in the first instance whether the statement of disqualification filed by North American Title Company (Petitioner) was timely.”

And the latest conflicts cases spotted by Bill Freivogel:

• Empire Trust, LLC v. Cellura, 2024 WL 4573989 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024).
  • “Douglas Dollinger represents Plaintiff, Empire Trust in this civil fraud case against Defendant, Joseph Cellura. Dollinger currently represents Cellura in a related fraud case. Defendants moved to disqualify Dollinger in this case. In this opinion the court granted the motion to disqualify.”
  • “The court described Dollinger’s arguments against disqualification as ‘scattershot distractions.’ At one point Dollinger argued that his own client did not have the attorney-client privilege. The judge’s reaction was priceless: ‘Think about that for a moment.'”
•  Harbour Antibodies BV v. Teneobio, Inc., 2024 WL 4554855 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2024).
  • “Law Firm represents Harbour against Teneobio (‘T Inc’) in this patent-related case. Shortly before Law Firm filed this case, T Inc was acquired by Amgen. Amgen is a client of Law Firm. T Inc moved to disqualify Law Firm in this case. The court referred the matter to a Special Master (‘SM’). The SM filed a report recommending the motion to disqualify be denied.”
  • “In this opinion the court adopted the report and denied the motion. The court agreed with the SM’s view a Rule 1.7(a) conflict exists, but also agreed with SM justice would best be served by allowing Law Firm to continue. This could have gone either way and is of doubtful precedential value. So, we see no gain in an extended discussion of the arguments.”
  • “If you want tips on how to defeat such a motion in the face of a conflict, take a look at the opinion. Warning; The court discusses a ‘thrust upon’ theory in the context of this case. In our 30 years of work in this area, ‘thrust upon’ has been a feature in some ‘hot potato’ cases, but never as here.”
• M.D. v. S.D., No. 126,599 (Kan. App. Oct. 18, 2024).
  • “We recently wrote of a Canadian case in which the appellate court upheld a trial court’s disqualification of a father representing his son, because the father could not provide objectivity in the representation, Bergeron v. Assemblee parlementaire des étudiants du Quebec Inc., 2024 QCCA 1264 (CanLII) (Ct. App. Que. Sept. 27, 2024). That was a unique holding in Canada.”
  • “We pointed out that we had not seen such a holding in the U.S. Well, we’ve come close with this one, ‘a contentious divorce custody dispute.’ Father and Mother are fighting over custody of four children in, some would day ‘the most contentious case in Johnson County family court.’ Father’s father (‘Grandfather’) attempted to represent Father in this case. The trial court disqualified Grandfather. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed. Both courts relied primarily on Rule 3.7, because Grandfather had testified early on in this case and is likely to do so again. Neither court mentioned material limitation concepts under Rule 1.7, but it would not have been much of a reach to do so.”
• Via Appia, LLC v. OP Devel., Inc., No. F087160 (Cal. App. Unpub. 5th Dist. Oct. 21, 2024).
  • “Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs’ law firm (‘P Firm’) because P Firm had consulted with, and tendered as Plaintiffs’ expert, an individual, with whom Defendants’ lawyers had earlier consulted about this case. The trial court disqualified both the consultant and P Firm. In this unpublished opinion the appellate court affirmed. The court relied heavily upon a leading case, Shadow Traffic Network v. Super. Ct., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1067 (1994). The analysis is highly fact-specific, and limited to California appellate cases, but is a good review of how far a lawyer may go in messing with the other side’s expert.”

“From Guaranteed Comp to Ethics Screens, How Big Law Navigates the Revolving Door” —

• “As the revolving door between the government and Big Law picks up pace this year, law firms are hiring a series of lawyers hailing from the same federal agencies they are litigating against in client matters.”
• “To guard against ethical violations, law firms and laterals face several procedures and restrictions. From setting up ethics screens on some matters to ensuring laterals from the government aren’t compensated for certain matters, these restrictions can add up when firms have several laterals from the government.”
• “The ethics restrictions are one consideration when firms hire lawyers from the government. Those restrictions are coming more into focus as law firms are hiring more lawyers from the government this year, especially from the Justice Department.”
• “‘When firms do a profitability projection, they factor in the hands-off period for the person’s prior agency for a period of time,’ D.C.-based Garrison partner Dan Binstock said, speaking generally on firms hiring government attorneys.”
• “Firms such as Milbank; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Kirkland & Ellis; Mayer Brown; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and King & Spalding, among others, have all added government talent this year. Each one of these firms is also litigating against or adversarial to the government in client matters.”
• “Firms need to take into account how long a government candidate will be restricted from handling certain matters or advising clients on cases before their agency, which can vary in years.”
• “For instance, when Milbank hired SEC enforcement chief Gurbir Grewal this year, the firm noted he had to wait at least a year before handling matters involving the agency. At the same time, Grewal, as one of the highest-profile lawyers from the government this year, was likely paid a competitive partner compensation package.”
• “If a former government attorney is hired as an equity partner, the firm will have to ensure that the attorney isn’t sharing in fees generated when he or she was in government, from a client matter involving the government.”
• “‘A defined guarantee is often the clearest answer,’ noted D.C.-based Garrison partner Amy Savage, in a prior Law.com interview. ‘There are some firms that will back out of the portion of the profits they are barred from receiving, but that’s a much more complicated structure, and so in my experience, at least, the guarantees have largely helped to address that issue.'”
  Lateral Moves”
• “The ethics restrictions are also factors for when government lawyers move to firms. For instance, a job search can impact when or if a recusal is triggered for a government attorney from a case they may be working or overseeing at their agency.”
• “Mayer Brown is far from the only firm hiring lawyers from agencies they are litigating against.”
• “For such situations, it’s become common for a government lateral’s new law firm to establish an ethical screen—which prevents lawyers with conflicts of interest from sharing confidential information with others—particularly to separate that attorney from cases the firm may be handling before their old agency.”
• “However, these ethical screens can come up later in the courtroom.”
• “The efficacy of a screen could be challenged ‘in litigation, where a judge will rule whether or not it’s proper or improper for the lawyer or law firm to participate. I’ve heard some of that, and I think that’s much more common than bar prosecutions,’ said Michael Frisch, ethics counsel at Georgetown University Law Center.”
• “In some cases, an opposing counsel can try to get a law firm or attorney thrown off from a case, arguing there is a conflict of interest, noted Gerzhoy, of HWG.”
• “Despite law firms having to address all the restrictions, it’s unusual to see firms or attorneys face disciplinary action for violating these ethics rules, legal experts say. Part of it may be that violations can be ‘very difficult to prove,’ Frisch said.”

US Office of Government Ethics just published: “Incoming Employees and Ongoing Interests in Representational Services: Common 18 U.S.C §§ 203 and 205(a)(1) Issues and Solutions” —

• “The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing this Legal Advisory to provide guidance for incoming employees to the executive branch who may receive compensation for certain representational services provided prior to or during their Government service. “
• “The potential for such problematic payments arises most commonly for individuals who are leaving law firms to accept executive branch employment, and particularly for those who will receive a partnership share based on the firm’s profits for the entire year, including the period when the individual is in Government service. “
• “This Advisory provides an overview of the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 203 followed by a review of commonly problematic payments under the statute and typical methods used to resolve these issues. The Advisory then provides an overview of the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 205(a)(1), identifies problematic payments, and offers solutions. Finally, attached to the Advisory are three job aids to assist in screening incoming employees for potential issues under these statutes; distinguishing the timing elements of the statutes; and identifying common problematic payments and solutions under 18 U.S.C. § 203.”
• “Example 1: An incoming employee to the Federal Government, Alex, is an equity partner in a law firm who is entitled to a certain percentage of the firm’s overall annual profits (partnership share). The law firm engages in representational services and is compensated for those services. The law firm calculates and pays partnership share income each year in January based on profits for the preceding calendar year. Alex plans to leave their law firm on June 30 and begin Government service on July 1. The law firm’s standard method of calculating partnership share income would raise 18 U.S.C. § 203 concerns because the calculation would include profits from representational services performed during the six-month period after Alex left the firm and began Government service, from July 1 to December 31.”
• “Example 3: Same facts as Example 1 involving Alex, an equity partner. In recognition of the fact that Alex will only work half of the year at the law firm, the law firm offers to calculate Alex’s standard partnership share at the end of the year using the profits for the full year, but discount it by 50% to reflect that they only worked at the firm for half the year. The firm’s discount of the partnership share income by 50% does not resolve the 18 U.S.C. § 203 issues because the pool from which Alex’s partnership share is calculated will include profits from representational services made for the entire year, including the period while Alex is a Government employee. “
• “Example 6: An incoming employee to the Federal Government, Casey, is an attorney on a pending case involving representational services.28 Casey’s law firm agreed to accept the case on a contingency fee basis, so the law firm and the attorneys on the case will receive payment from the client only if they are successful in the matter. The case is ongoing when Casey begins Government service. To avoid issues under 18 U.S.C. § 203, the law firm agrees to pay Casey based on the hours Casey worked on the case instead of the contingency fee. Because Casey’s interest in the case has been reduced to a sum certain and is no longer contingent on the outcome of the case, this arrangement resolves the 18 U.S.C. § 203 issues.”

“Treasure Hunter Urges Atty DQ In Fla. Shipwreck Suit” —

• “A member of an ocean salvage company urged a Florida federal court Wednesday to disqualify counsel applying to represent his opponent in a lawsuit over a claim to a Spanish galleon’s sunken treasure, saying the attorney previously represented the company in a separate dispute involving the same wreckage.”
• “Maritime Research & Recovery LLC member Daniel Porter brought a motion opposing the application of attorney David Concannon of Concannon & Charles PC to represent Carl Allen and Allen Exploration LLC, or AEX, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, claiming that he formerly represented MMR in a separate but similar dispute with another party over the wreckage of the Nuestra Señora de las Maravillas located in Bahamian territorial waters.”
• “‘Attorney Concannon is conflicted in this matter and thus disqualifiable according to the rules regulating the Florida Bar,’ the plaintiff’s motion stated. ‘Granting of pro hac vice status is not a right, it is qualified by the attorney seeking such admission to agree to follow all local rules. Attorney Concannon, before his motion was ripe, has failed in this regard.'”
• “In his complaint, Porter said he entered into a contract with the defendants to ‘educate, advise and implement’ an operation to salvage the sunken treasure on the Maravillas. In the contract, the parties agreed that they’d give a portion of all artifacts to the Bahamian government as a condition of Allen receiving a recovery permit and that the plaintiffs would receive 30% of the rest based on their efforts in the operation, according to the suit.”
• “The plaintiffs alleged in their suit that Allen and his company utilized their reputation and expertise to obtain a permit but never gave them a cut of the treasure.”
• “The plaintiffs claimed that Concannon was actively advising them in a dispute from another agreement, including providing legal strategies to defend against accusations levied by a person by the name of ‘Dr. E. Lee Spence,’ who said MRR violated the agreement it had between them. The contract between Spence and Porter was to search for debris from the Maravillas.”
• “But the defendants, who are based in Texas, brought a counterclaim against Porter and MRR, saying they never disclosed the prior agreement with Spence.”
• “‘Had they known about Porter and MRR’s contractual relationship with Spence, Mr. Allen and AEX never would have engaged in any discussions with Porter or MRR about the Maravillas or any other shipwreck on the Little Bahamas Banks,’ the counterclaim said.”

“Jones Day Jumps Back Into Trump-Related Litigation for GOP” —

• “Jones Day is edging its way into the legal fight to send Donald Trump back to the White House, even after the powerful Washington firm distanced itself from the former president.”
• “Jones Day lawyers on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to block Pennsylvania from counting certain provisional ballots. It’s one of several cases the firm is handling for the Republican National Committee, the party’s national arm.”
• “The firm was closely aligned with Trump in his first administration, sending partners to key positions in the White House and Justice Department. Its role in the run up to next week’s election shows Jones Day moving back closer into Trump’s orbit, despite opting out of working directly for his campaign this time around.”
• “‘It all comes down to whether the firm wants to accept the risk of reputational harm after reconsidering its earlier position,’ said Stephen Gillers, an NYU Law School professor who studies legal and judicial ethics. ‘It may have decided that any negative effect on its reputation, including in hiring and among some clients, is outweighed by the advantages of gaining the appreciation of a possible future Trump administration.'”
• “Jones Day is not the only law firm servicing the RNC. Dickinson Wright, which also has deep GOP ties, is representing the committee in a Michigan suit to block ballots from overseas voters.”