Bressler Risk Blog

“Basic Ethics Breaks Supreme Court Because Too Many Justices Have Book Deals” —

• “The good news is that the Supreme Court took its self-imposed, entirely toothless ethical code seriously and multiple justices recused themselves from a major copyright case implicating publishers paying them hefty sums for their books. The bad news is… apparently the Supreme Court just can’t hear major copyright cases because they have too many conflicts of interest with publishers paying them hefty sums for their books. “
• “The case is Baker v. Coates, where author Ralph Baker alleged that fellow author Ta-Nehisi Coates plagiarized from Baker’s Stock Exchange in Coates’s The Water Dancer. As part of the lawsuit, Baker named a hodgepodge of media entities as defendants from Oprah to Disney to MGM to Apple. At a certain point, a caption populated with deep pockets creates potential conflicts.”
  • “24-6839, BAKER, RALPH W. V. COATES, TA-NEHISI, ET AL.: Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances ‘the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.’ Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”
• “As Fix the Court notes, four of the six recusing justices have had or will have books published by Penguin Random House, a subsidiary of a media conglomerate called Bertelsmann, a named defendant. Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson have books with Penguin. The fact that the Supreme Court’s weak ethical guidelines don’t require justices to explain their recusals(Opens in a new window) — even if it intended to inspire that sort of transparency — it’s not immediately clear what prompted Alito to recuse himself.”
• “But still, it should be a problem that the highest court in the land is paralyzed in the face of major media conglomerates. Given that antitrust hasn’t done a particularly good job of policing the media space, these conflicts will only deepen as long justices keep writing books.”
• “And why DO we have justices constantly writing books while still serving the public? It’s a function of paying a public servant salary while allowing aristocratic role. In a normal job where the public trust might be implicated, an official might wait until they retire to cash in on big money book deal. But when life tenure transformed from ‘insulation from partisan whims’ to ‘confirmation-to-grave job security,’ the justices stopped envisioning a memoir-fueled retirement at a reasonable age and decided to start writing early and often as a salary supplement.”

David Kluft notes: “Can the federal government order government contractors to disclose whether they hired a law firm the President doesn’t like?” —

• “A portion of an executive order required government contractors to disclose if they did business with a certain law firm, with the aim of punishing and intimidating the firm and its clients to satisfy the President’s personal grudge.”
• “D.D.C. Judge Beryl Howell found that this order impinged the firm clients’ First Amendment right to engage in private association, and thus needed to be narrowly tailored to support a substantial government interest.”
• “Judge Howell found that the government attorneys ‘misrepresented’ the scope of this provision, ‘confusingly .. ignored’ the government’s burden, and made “zero effort” to explain a substantial interest. The provision was enjoined.”
• The decision.

“Goodwin Procter Meets EEOC Demand to Supply Diversity Data” —

• “Goodwin Procter axed relationships with major diversity, equity, and inclusion nonprofit organizations that seek to diversify the legal profession in the wake of federal scrutiny.”
• “The firm sent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission more than 200 pages worth of information that it had demanded, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg Law. The agency, directed by President Donald Trump, wrote to 20 law firms March 17 asking them to hand over information on their diversity initiatives and hiring decisions going back 10 years.”
• “‘These changes, in combination with the firm’s past and ongoing demonstrated commitment to EEO, reflect that the firm’s policies and actions are in accord with the commission’s current guidance,’ a lawyer for Goodwin told the agency.”
• “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led a coalition of states that asked the 20 firms to send them the same information. Allan Bloom of Proskauer, who is guiding Goodwin in the EEOC probe, asked for the information to be kept confidential in an April 15 letter to Paxton obtained by Bloomberg Law.”
• “The EEOC also requested specific, identifiable data of past fellowship recipients and those promoted to partner, including names, phone numbers, race and gender. The firm declined to hand over identifiable data but did share anonymously fellowship recipients’ race, gender, school, grade point average and location of the office where they worked.”
• “Reed Smith is in talks with the EEOC over its requests, Perkins Coie declined to respond to the request until its suit contesting a punitive executive order was resolved, according to letters obtained by Bloomberg Law. Hogan Lovells, another firm that was probed for details, requested an extension past the April 15 deadline.”
• “Six firms who also received the EEOC letter— Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, Skadden, and Milbank— made deals with Trump that included free legal services, in exchange for being released from the probe.”

“KPMG Law Firm Faces California Blockade With Fee Shares Bill” —

• “A California bill aims to throw a wrench into plans by KMPG and law firms backed by outside investors to operate in the state from their perches in Arizona.”
  “The measure (A.B. 931), already passed by the state Assembly, would ban California lawyers and firms from sharing legal fees with ‘out-of-state alternative business structures.’ It was introduced less than two weeks before KPMG won approval to launch a law firm in Arizona under the state’s alternative business structure program, positioning it as the first Big Four accounting, tax, and consulting company to compete head-on with law firms in the US.”
• “KPMG, whose size and reach makes it a competitive threat to Big Law, plans to use staffing agencies and co-counseling relationships with other law firms to serve clients outside of Arizona. The California bill would effectively close off access to the Golden State, an important legal services market.”
• “‘We’ve seen an attempt by some of the ABS’s to come in through the back door over the border to California,’ said Nancy Drabble, CEO of Consumer Attorneys of California. The professional organization for plaintiff’s attorneys is a key backer of the legislation, which Drabble said was designed to prevent large corporations, private equity companies, and hedge funds participating in the Arizona alternative business structure system from entering California through alliances with lawyers in the state.”
• “Litigation funders, private equity, and marketing agencies have flocked to Arizona, which eliminated a rule preventing non-lawyers from owning law firms and created an alternative business structure licensing program. California and other major legal markets have so far declined to enact similar changes, which would open up law firms to direct outside investment and could allow them to go public.”
• “‘There is always a risk that when one state, particularly a big state, passes a law, other states will look at it,’ said Boris Ziser, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel and co-head of the firm’s finance group, who has helped set up around half-a-dozen alternative business structures in Arizona. ‘That’s one of the unfortunate byproducts of a bad law.'”
• “KPMG wants to expand some of the legal work it’s already doing outside of the US, including large scale integrations following mergers and acquisitions by its clients. But that would likely require at least some ability to operate in the country’s largest markets, which are outside of Arizona.”
• “The main focus of the legislation is on regulating consumer legal funding—deals in which funders purchase the right to receive a portion of settlements or awards from individual consumers’ legal claims in the state.”
• “It would regulate consumer legal funding agreements and ban attorneys from accepting clients from referral services that are not certified lawyers. The measure excludes lenders and special purpose entities that invest in a consumer legal funding company.”
• “Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 signed a law that blocked the California Bar from tinkering with the rules banning non-lawyer ownership of law firms. The move halted discussions of a possible regulatory ‘sandbox,’ like that in Utah, to experiment with alternative business structures.”

David Kluft notes: “Can I brag about the appeal I won for a current client during a pitch to a new prospective client?”

• “Oregon Ethics Opinion 2024-24 opines that non-confidential client information can be discussed during a client pitch, but lawyers must be mindful that some public information may be confidential as to the lawyer, and that could include relatively innocuous data such as the identity of a client or the existence of a legal dispute even if it’s on the public docket.”
• “Why can such information be confidential? Because even if it is publicly available it still may not be generally known, and it be embarrassing or detrimental to the client depending on the context. If you want to discuss client confidential information during a pitch, the client’s informed consent is required.”
• Read the opinion here.

“Judge allows Dallas defense lawyer to stay on Texas 7 case, despite alleged conflicts” —

• “The attorney representing Randy Halprin will remain on his defense team, despite witnessing the execution of another member of the Texas Seven, a judge ruled Monday. The Dallas County district attorney’s office wanted lawyer Heath Harris kicked off the case, arguing his work as a former prosecutor disqualified him from representing Halprin. But state District Judge Lela Lawrence Mays said there wasn’t proof the purported conflict of interest merited removing Harris.”
• “Harris previously held a high-ranking position in former District Attorney Craig Watkins’ administration. Harris, alongside Watkins, attended the 2012 lethal injection of George Rivas, the man described as masterminding the prison break. In their 60-page motion from March, prosecutors also painted a picture that Harris was involved in the Texas Seven’s post-conviction proceedings.”
• “Harris has said he had no involvement in Halprin’s prosecution decades ago and that he would zealously fight to stay on the case; at a hearing last week, Harris testified in his own defense — and cross-examined himself.”
• “‘I never thought there was a conflict,’ Harris told The Dallas Morning News on Tuesday. ‘I didn’t do any work on the Texas Seven case — I’m trying to work as hard as I can to separate (Halprin) from the actions from the Texas Seven.'”
• “The latest ruling is the finale to a spate of legal challenges over conflicts of interest. Prosecutors first sought to oust Harris and then the DA’s office wanted to recuse itself because a prosecutor worked for a law firm that handled Halprin’s post-conviction defense two decades ago.”
• “Jim Coleman, a professor at Duke University’s law school who runs the Center for Criminal Justice and Professional Responsibility, said a judge should err on the side of not making a mistake that could be appealed: ‘Capital cases are not where you want to be out on the cutting edge of the law, particularly one with a long history where there have been errors.'”
• “‘Why not cure something before it can become an issue?’ he said. ‘Why would you force relationships that might appear questionable?'”
• “Brian Owsley, an associate professor at UNT Dallas College of Law, said the DA’s office appeared to ask to recuse itself in good faith and the judge exercised her discretion. If he’s convicted, Halprin has waived his right to appeal based on the DA’s alleged conflict, according to court records.”
• “People facing death should have lawyers they are confident in, said Bruce Green, a professor and director of the Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University’s law school.”
• “‘If there’s no objection from the defendant — and they want this lawyer — and the lawyer thinks they can do a good job, then interfering in that relationship is problematic,’ Green said. “

“Elon Musk Opposes Law Firm’s Hiring of SEC’s Former Crypto Enforcement Unit Head” —

• “…Elon Musk is opposing a move by plaintiff-side firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP to hire Jorge Tenreiro, the former chief litigation counsel of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.”
• “In a court filing, Musk argued that Tenreiro had a significant role in an SEC enforcement action against him related to the same issues as a securities fraud lawsuit filed by Bernstein Litowitz concerning Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now called X.”
• “The law firm announced last month its intention to hire Tenreiro and sought approval from the judge overseeing the shareholder lawsuit for its proposed conflict screening measures to ensure Tenreiro would not work on the case. However, Musk contended in his filing that Tenreiro’s involvement in the SEC’s investigation into him was substantial, including recommending and advancing the enforcement action based on the same conduct alleged in the private litigation.”
• “In 2022, former Twitter shareholders filed a lawsuit against Musk, alleging he delayed disclosing his accumulation of a significant stake in the company to keep stock prices low, saving him approximately $143 million. Musk later acquired Twitter and privatized it, renaming the platform X. During the same period, the SEC, under the Biden administration, also initiated legal action against Musk, claiming he failed to file a timely beneficial ownership report after acquiring more than a 5% stake in Twitter in 2022.”
• “At the time of the SEC’s lawsuit against Musk, Tenreiro served as the agency’s chief litigation counsel, having previously led its cryptocurrency and cyber unit. Musk’s filing stated that Tenreiro participated in discussions about the investigation and reviewed a memorandum recommending that the SEC pursue enforcement action.”
• “Bernstein Litowitz has maintained that Tenreiro’s role in the SEC’s investigation was minimal and emphasized that he would not participate in their lawsuit against Musk. The firm argued that its conflict screening procedures would prevent any issues, noting that defendants in other cases involving Tenreiro’s prior SEC work had approved similar measures.”
• “Musk, however, expressed concerns about the feasibility of effective screening, citing the close-knit nature of Bernstein Litowitz’s securities fraud practice and its relatively small New York office. He also pointed to Tenreiro’s social media activity, noting that the former SEC official had ‘liked’ posts critical of Musk, suggesting bias.”
• “In a court declaration last month, Tenreiro disclosed that he contacted Bernstein Litowitz about employment opportunities after being reassigned to the SEC’s information technology department in February. He accepted a buyout offer and left the agency on April 4. Bernstein Litowitz stated in April that Tenreiro has no memory of confidential government information related to the SEC’s case and does not possess nonpublic information that could disadvantage any defendant in the litigation.”
• “The law firm has requested that the judge approve its conflict screening procedures to proceed with hiring Tenreiro.”

“The hidden reason law firms that cut deals with Trump may regret it” —

• “It is shameful and alarming that nine leading Big Law firms caved when President Trump threatened their financial bottom lines. But putting aside potential criminal exposure — both a perpetrator and a target may be guilty of bribery, for example — these timorous law firms may soon face practical problems that, ironically, affect their financial well-being.”
• “The firms have a serious conflict-of-interest problem that has been hiding in plain sight.”
• “A core element of the ethical rules that bind all lawyers in the U.S. is the understanding that a lawyer may not represent a client if that representation conflicts with the interests of other clients the lawyer represents, or other commitments made by the lawyer. Professional ethics requires that law firms must avoid such conflicts.”
• “Having reached agreements with Trump, these law firms have now expressly aligned themselves with the interests of the federal government. The professional rules against serving two or more masters therefore should disqualify these firms from doing any work against the federal government.”
• “The firms siding with the administration also represent important clients, many with claims against federal agencies. In such cases, if the government seeks to disqualify a law firm because of this obvious conflict, it ought to win.”
• “If these law firms agreed to represent the federal government directly, as Trump announced, this would create an unmistakable conflict. Each American law firm is treated as a single entity, so each lawyer’s client is thus also the firm’s client. And there are few if any large law firms that don’t have cases against the federal government and therefore may not represent the government — even in unrelated matters. If Trump insists on direct representation, as he has touted, any law firm would have to drop all its other clients who oppose the government.”
• “The rules forbidding professional conflicts may sometimes be waived, but any such waiver must come from both parties. Even if a firm’s clients were willing to agree to conflicted representation, why would the government ever waive a conflict in a vigorously disputed matter?”
• “The firms that agreed to Trump’s deal are now in a very precarious position. Engaging in a conflict of interest without a proper waiver violates professional ethical rules in every state, and a firm’s lawyers thereby would risk serious professional sanctions.”
• “It should therefore be extremely difficult for these firms to continue their work when the federal government is an adverse party. Paradoxically, such a major financial hit is far more likely than any possible criminal law exposure resulting from the deals. Trump and his minions need not fear any prosecution by the current Department of Justice.”
• “Nonetheless, the firms that publicly aligned their interests with the federal government have demonstrated that they will compromise to please the president. This is shaky ground. The lingering threat of soft sanctions inevitably infuses the firm’s representation. If the agreement influences the judgment of any lawyer in the firm, this is a conflict situation.”
• “In addition, those law firms that reached an agreement with Trump must worry about possible malpractice claims should any cases against the government go wrong. If there is the slightest evidence that the law firm walked on eggshells in their representation of any private client, the stench of unethical conflicts of interest might follow. Even ignoring the moral and reputational dimensions of these firms’ agreements, their bottom lines may suffer as well.”

“R.I. Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel: Attorneys – Former employer – Conflict” —

• “Where an attorney wishes to represent a client in a suit against a town school district represented by a law firm that previously employed the attorney, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit the attorney’s representation of the client, as the attorney did not acquire any material information about the town while working for the law firm.”
• “‘The inquiring attorney formerly worked for a law firm that represents school districts in a variety of legal matters, including disputes relating to special education. The inquiring attorney did not participate in any special education matters during his or her time at the firm; rather, he or she provided legal research to partners in a supporting role, handled public records requests, and occasionally appeared at hearings and other proceedings on behalf of clients.”
• “‘Now at a new firm, the inquiring attorney wishes to represent parents and guardians in special education disputes with school districts. He or she has received a client referral, of a guardian concerned that his or her grandchild’s educational rights are being violated (the ‘Client’). The school district in question (the ‘Town’) is currently a client of the inquiring attorney’s former firm and was so during the inquiring attorney’s tenure there. The inquiring attorney reports that he or she did not handle any matters for the Town during his or her time at the former law firm and has no independent knowledge of the Client’s matter. …”
• “‘It is the Panel’s opinion that the inquiring attorney is not prohibited under the Rules of Professional Conduct from representing the Client.. Of particular relevance to here is Rule 1.9(b), which prohibits an attorney from representing a prospective client when three (3) factors are met. First, the matter must be the same or substantially related to one in which the attorney’s former firm had previously represented a client. Second, the former client’s interests must be materially adverse to those of the prospective client. Third, the attorney must have acquired information about the former client protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter. The prohibition in Rule 1.9(b) may only be overcome by obtaining the written informed consent of the former client.'”
• “‘While there is no question that the Client’s and Town’s interests are necessarily adverse given the nature of the parties’ dispute regarding the Client’s grandchild’s educational rights, it is unclear from the facts as described by the inquiring attorney whether the Client’s matter is the same or substantially related to one in which the inquiring attorney’s former firm represented the Town. Even if it is, however, the facts indicate that the inquiring attorney never handled any matters for the Town during his or her time at the former firm, including the Client’s case, and has no independent knowledge of the matter. Therefore, the third element cannot be met…”
• “‘Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the inquiring attorney may represent the Client without needing to obtain the informed written consent of the Town…'”

“Philly Judge Under Fire For Promoting Wife’s Cheesesteak Biz” —

• “Pennsylvania’s judicial ethics board has accused a Philadelphia judge of using his position on the bench to promote a cheesesteak restaurant opened by his wife and named in honor of his late parents.”
• “Judge Scott DiClaudio was charged by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board on Tuesday for allegedly playing up his position on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in a series of articles and other media reports about his wife’s eatery, Shay’s Steaks, and during interactions with customers.”
• “The activity, the board said in a complaint, constituted abuse of his office for the advancement of his own economic interests and failed to promote public confidence in the judiciary.”
• “Judge DiClaudio is currently on probation in the Court of Judicial Discipline following a previous ethics case in which the board brought charges over his alleged failure to participate in litigation over money he owed to a suburban social club. The judge was ordered to serve a two-week suspension in 2021 as a result of the ethics case.”
• “According to the new complaint filed this week, in the months after Jackee DiClaudio opened Shay’s Steaks in March 2024, the restaurant was featured in newspaper articles, local news segments and podcasts with direct references to and puns about Judge DiClaudio’s day job as an elected official.”
• “The complaint makes note of one article saying Judge DiClaudio may have been addressed in the courtroom as ‘Whiz Honor.’ In a television news segment, the host enters the restaurant and identifies Judge DiClaudio as a judge.”
• “In January, the complaint says, Judge DiClaudio participated in a podcast to promote the restaurant and spent some time talking about his judicial philosophy and dealing with mental health issues in the courtroom.”
• “Documents accompanying the complaint include pages of reviews from social media and online review websites where customers describe meeting Judge DiClaudio and mention his position. In one incident, the complaint alleges, a customer was invited to watch Judge DiClaudio in the courtroom.”
• “Judge DiClaudio began his 10-year term with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2016 and is up for retention in the 2025 general election in November.”

“DOJ’s New Biglaw ‘Conflict’ Policy: A Masterclass in Retaliation Theater” —

• “In an effort to keep piling indignity upon the legacy of the Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General (and apparently Librarian of Congress somehow?) Todd Blanche just unveiled a policy redefining ‘conflict of interest’ to mean ‘dared to sue us’ — directing that the Justice Department’s ‘private counsel’ program can no longer hire any firm that ‘contemporaneously are directly adverse to the United States — for example, active litigation against Administration policies or representing clients in active litigation against Administration policies.'”
• “The edict cites the Model Rules, which do identify as a conflict, ‘the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client.’ Though since representing a law firm challenging an executive order has no substantive connection to helping the civil division collect debts — the point of the private counsel program — the announcement stretches the interpretation of ‘conflict’ like flubber. “
• “There are around 20 Am Law 200 firms currently tussling with the government by the National Law Journal’s reckoning. That includes firms targeted by Trump executive orders that had the self-respect not to surrender, the firms representing those firms, as well as the firms representing the wrongfully deported or Harvard or people illegally fired by [Elon Musk].”
• “Except… who cares? The flipside of running an administration built on illegal retaliation is that it creates enough potential business to more than offset losing out on any private counsel work the DOJ might throw that way. When Trump closes a door, he opens several more and they all lead into courtrooms. “
• “Does anyone actually think we’ve seen the end of law firms slapped with vindictive executive orders or universities receiving funding threats? There’s going to be work everywhere… The only practical effect of this decision is leaving the DOJ without anyone trying to take on private counsel business.”

“‘Prior knowledge’ clause bars legal malpractice action” —

• “A professional liability insurance policy did not cover a malpractice claim brought against an attorney who drafted a company’s standard noncompete agreement before representing one of the company’s principals against allegations that she breached the agreement, a Superior Court judge has held.”
• “Defendant John Tocci provided employment counseling to Flexible Fundamentals for several years, during which he drafted its noncompete agreement and advised ‘FlexFun’ on the agreement’s implementation and enforceability.”
• “In 2021, FlexFun sued principal Errion McGrath, claiming she violated her noncompete by starting a competing entity.”
• “When FlexFun learned that Tocci was defending McGrath and other defendants in its action, it sought to disqualify him, citing a conflict of interest. A trial judge allowed the motion and the Appeals Court upheld the disqualification, stating that the record showed he had confidential information from his prior representation of FlexFun that he could have used against his former client.”
• “FlexFun subsequently brought a malpractice claim against Tocci and his firm.”
• “Plaintiff AIX Specialty Insurance followed with an action seeking a declaration that a ‘prior knowledge limitation’ in Tocci’s policy barred coverage because he had a reasonable basis to foresee the malpractice claim before the applicable policy period began.”
• “Judge Peter B. KruppJudge Peter B. Krupp, sitting in the Business Litigation Session, granted the motion.”
• See: AIX Specialty Insurance Company v. Tocci, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 09-057-25

“Doctors Want Stay Of DQ Bid Amid Spine Center ERISA Deal” —

• “Doctors and other former employees of Atlanta-area Polaris Spine and Neurosurgery PC have agreed to settle their ERISA claims alleging the center botched the distribution of their retirement benefits, also seeking a stay of Polaris’ bid to have their Holland & Knight counsel disqualified over an alleged conflict.”
• “Plaintiffs Emily Joy Taylor, Carri Thier, Christopher Tomaras, Raymond Walkup and Shane Mangrum filed a notice of settlement in Georgia federal court Monday, ending claims they first launched in January 2023 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.”
• “‘Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to its inherent power to control its docket and in the interests of judicial economy, this court stay the pending motion [to] disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel through and including May 5, 2025,’ the notice says.”
• “The notice came while Polaris is seeking to have Holland & Knight removed from representing the former staff, arguing the law firm had previously represented the spine center.”
• “Polaris and Steuer told the court in their December motion that Holland & Knight spent more than a year serving as corporate counsel for the spine center, ‘during a highly litigious time period,’ and that allowing the firm to continue representing the ex-employees would violate Georgia rules of conduct.”
• “Holland & Knight represented the practice amid a heated ownership dispute from May 2020 into July 2021, Polaris said, arguing the dispute underlies the ERISA case, and therefore the law firm should not be permitted to represent the doctors.”
• “‘Defendants will pursue discovery into the origin and impact of the partnership dispute, and the impact of the dispute on Polaris, including its financial ability to contribute to, or even rely on advisors to actively manage, the Polaris retirement plan,’ Polaris and Steuer said in the disqualification bid. ‘These matters, in which Holland & Knight represented Polaris, are critical to the background of this dispute.'”
• “In an opposition filed in January, Holland & Knight called the disqualification bid a ‘purely tactical move,’ telling the court there was not a ‘substantial relationship’ between the firm’s previous representation and the ERISA matter.”

“Pork Producers Want Ruling Tossed Over Clerk’s Conduct” —

• “Pork producers and Agri Stats Inc., which are defending themselves against a major price-fixing suit, are calling on the Minnesota federal judge overseeing the case to recuse himself and vacate his recent rulings, accusing one of his clerks of having inappropriate relationships with plaintiffs’ attorneys in a new filing this week.”
• “On Monday night, a group of the food companies and the agricultural data company Agri Stats said U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim’s law clerk previously worked for firms representing direct purchase plaintiffs in the case, has a standing offer to join another firm that has repeatedly taken on what the firm calls ‘Big Agriculture’ and even publicly engaged with social media posts related to the case.”
• “They moved for Judge Tunheim to wipe away his denial of their summary judgment bid and recuse himself from the case altogether.”
• “‘Defendants are compelled to seek this relief in light of recently disclosed facts confirming that one of the Court’s law clerks performed substantive work [on the case] … despite being sufficiently conflicted,’ the companies said in their new filing.”
• “According to the motion, the clerk ‘has worked for three different entities suing protein producers for antitrust violations based on Agri Stats.’ On top of that, the companies said one of the leading plaintiffs’ firms in the pork case has offered the clerk a job.”
• “And while the filing redacts exactly how it claims the clerk engaged with the social media posts, it mentions an announcement on social media that the clerk’s former employer had sued Agri Stats and a post by the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the pork case made ‘within days of the oral argument’ on the companies’ Daubert motions.”
• “The filing also claims the clerk ‘publicly embraced plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case in the courtroom immediately following oral argument on the Daubert motions.'”
• “‘The law is clear,’ the companies said. ‘Under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 455(a), recusal is required if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the streets who knows the relevant facts. A law clerk’s conduct, moreover, can be imputed to a judge.'”
• “And it’s especially true when, as was the case for the Daubert and summary judgment motions, the clerk helped the judge with the relevant decisions, the companies said.”
• “‘The appearance of impropriety is even more palpable given that only the barest facts regarding the clerk’s conduct have recently been disclosed to Defendants, despite months of requests,’ the companies said.”
• “According to the defendant companies, the clerk worked as a summer associate at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP when the firm was lead counsel for antitrust litigation accusing major poultry companies and Agri Stats of conspiring to artificially inflate the price of broiler chickens.”
• “In that case, the companies said, the firm even submitted a fee petition requesting payment for the clerk’s work. The firm is now suing the pork producers on behalf of direct purchaser plaintiffs.”
• “The clerk also worked for a time at Robins Kaplan LLP, which, according to the pork producers and Agri Stats, has a pending offer of employment to him. Robins Kaplan, the companies said, is a ‘leading plaintiffs’ firm that touts antitrust litigation against ‘Big Agriculture’ as a core part of its practice.'”
• “According to the motion, the clerk also publicly engaged with a LinkedIn post announcing that one of his contacts was joining the Minnesota Attorney General’s office — where the clerk had also worked before his job with Judge Tunheim — and that attorney general’s office was joining the U.S. Department of Justice’s case against Agri Stats. He’s even continued to have ‘active social media interactions with plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case’ during his clerkship.”
• “On Monday night, the companies said this was ‘the first time defendants had any inkling of any potential conflict related to the clerk.'”
• “The companies quickly asked the plaintiffs about the clerk and flagged his prior work to the court in December. According to Monday’s filing, the defendants didn’t receive any response from the court. They even filed a motion asking for a sealed conference to be held regarding the potential conflict, but still got no response.”

“NY Bill Aims to Exclude Trump Work From Bar Pro Bono Hours” —

• “Free legal work for President Donald Trump wouldn’t count towards pro bono legal hours required for New York bar admission under a new bill quickly gaining steam in Albany.”
• “The measure, printed Thursday in the waning weeks of New York’s legislative session, exempts free legal work ‘performed pursuant to an agreement with the federal government’ from the required 50 hours law graduates must show to become barred.”
• “If passed, the measure would present another challenge for firms that have struck deals to provide free legal work for the president. Law school graduates regularly begin jobs before they’re barred as lawyers and rely partly on their employers to help them meet New York’s bar admission requirements including pro bono hours.”
• “Nine of the country’s largest law firms—a group that includes Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, and Simpson Thacher—pledged $940 million in legal services for causes Trump supports, such as combating anti-semitism, assisting veterans, and ‘ensuring fairness’ in the justice system. They made deals to avoid executive orders like those aimed at other firms with ties to lawyers who have investigated or sued the president and to resolve federal probes into diversity recruiting programs.”
• “Trump wants to use the firms to defend police officers accused of misconduct, work on tariff issues, and help revive the coal industry, the president said. Several of the firms’ leaders said in internal communications that they would retain the right to choose the clients and matters they take on.”
• “It makes sense that there are attempts to regulate pro bono work for lawyers, according to David Glasgow, executive director of NYU Law’s Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. ‘It does seem to me that there should be some limiting principle to make sure that pro bono hours are actually being used in the public interest,’ Glasgow said. ‘I do not think that whatever this administration decides it wants to do fits within the definition of public interest.'”

“Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 20-0001 (Lawyer as Expert Witness)” —

• “The [California] State Bar seeks public comment on Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 20-0001 (Lawyer as Expert Witness). Deadline: August 18, 2025, 11:59 p.m. (90 days)”
• “Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 20-0001 considers: May a lawyer ethically testify as an expert witness in matters involving current or former clients of the lawyer or the lawyer’s law firm?”
• “The opinion advises that a lawyer may ethically testify as an expert witness in a matter adverse to a former client provided that the lawyer’s testimony does not (1) injuriously affect the former client in any matter in which the attorney formerly represented the client; (2) disclose information acquired by virtue of the representation which is protected by Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e) or rule 1.6; or (3) use such information to the disadvantage of the former client. In certain circumstances, however, judicially developed principles of disqualification may prevent a lawyer whose testimony would be permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct from serving as an expert witness.”
• “The opinion also advises that no ethical principle bars the law firm of a lawyer that has previously testified as an expert witness from subsequently representing a client who is adverse to the party on whose behalf the lawyer previously testified. If the lawyer remains under contractual or other confidentiality obligations stemming from the lawyer’s prior expert role and respecting those obligations would significantly limit the firm’s representation of the firm’s client, then the law firm must obtain the client’s informed written consent prior to the representation under rule 1.7(b). Even if there is no material limitation conflict under rule 1.7(b), the law firm is required to make written disclosure of the lawyer’s continuing legal obligation to the adverse party under rule 1.7(c)(1).
• “Finally, the opinion advises that a lawyer should carefully consider, in conjunction with law firm management, whether a lawyer can ethically serve as an expert witness against a current client of the lawyer’s law firm in an unrelated matter. Even if a lawyer does not disclose or use confidential information of the law firm’s current client, the potential expert retention may implicate rules 1.4. 1.6, 1.7, and duties of loyalty, for the lawyer, the law firm, or both. Depending on the circumstances, informed written consent under rule 1.7(b), or written disclosure of the relationship under rule 1.7(c)(1), may be required.”

“Lateral Partner Moves: Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Law Firms” —

• “This article explains the ethical issues faced by laterally moving partners and their firms in light of recent guidance by the New York State Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. See New York RPC 1.4 comments 7b-7g; New York City Bar Association Eth. Op. 2023-1, ‘Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Law Firms Relating to Attorney Departures’ (June 20, 2022).”
• “What Confidential Material Can Be Shared With the New Firm Prior to Resignation? As noted above, unauthorized pre-resignation disclosure of confidential information to a suitor firm can be a breach of fiduciary duty. But a recruiting firm requires disclosure of certain information prior to making an offer. Recruiting firms have an obligation to run conflict checks before hiring lateral lawyers.”
  The New York State Bar Association has provided a road map of sorts as to what information may ethically be disclosed to the suitor firm. According to the NYSBA, a laterally moving partner may disclose:
  • (i) the identities of clients or other parties involved in a matter; (ii) a brief summary of the status and nature of a particular matter, including the general issues involved; (iii) information that is publicly available; (iv) the lawyer’s total book of business; (v) the financial terms of each lawyer-client relationship; and (vi) information about aggregate current and historical payment of fees (such as realization rates, average receivables, and aggregate timeliness of payments).
• “What Files May the Departing Partner Take? Departing partners may not take firm documents or files which do not belong to them. And the departing partner needs client permission to remove client files.”
  “In Gibbs, the departing partners were permitted to take copies of their chronological correspondence files and other documents that they own. Gibbs v. Breed Abbot & Morgan, 271 A.D.2nd 180 (1st Dept., 2000). However, the same lawyers breached their fiduciary duties by sharing with their suitor firm confidential firm records about associate compensation, billable hours, hourly rates and bonuses.”
  “Lawyers may take with them ‘contact information for clients and others with whom the departing lawyer worked.’ NYC Bar. Ass. Eth. Op. 2023-1. Accord, ABA Eth. Op. 489. These ‘should be provided as these are critical for conflict purposes and consistent with the departing attorney’s rights to move and continue to practice law and obligation to contact such clients.’ According to the American Bar Association, ‘a departing lawyer [may] retain names and contact information for clients for whom the departing lawyer worked while at the firm, in order to determine conflicts of interests at the departing lawyer’s new firm and comply with other applicable ethical or legal requirements.’ ABA Eth. Op._489 at 4.”
  “According to the City Bar a lawyer may bring with them: ‘the lawyer’s personal records, address/contact file, research materials and copies of transactional and litigation publicly filed documents.’ NYC Bar Ass. Eth. Op. 2023-1. In addition, lawyers may remove copies of ‘their personal (as opposed to firm) form files, copies of litigation and transactional documents that have not been publicly filed.'”

“Bradley Arant Faces DQ Bid In Georgia Mall Rent Dispute” —

• “A mall has urged a Georgia federal judge to disqualify Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP from representing a tenant in an unpaid rent dispute, arguing that the law firm has a conflict of interest because it has represented the mall’s sister corporation in similar litigation.”
• “‘The decision makers, decision processes, policies, goals, and strategies for Oxford, Hull, and Racine overlap and are intermingled and in many instances are identical,’ the mall said.”
• “The mall said that disqualification would ‘protect the integrity of the judicial process, maintain public confidence in the legal profession, and safeguard the confidences of plaintiff.’ In the current matter, the mall has argued in its complaint that its tenant, a sports chain, owes it about $389,378 in unpaid rent.”
• “‘The continued representation of defendant by Bradley Arant in the instant case creates a substantial risk that confidential information obtained during the prior representation has been or will be used in the instant action to the disadvantage of plaintiff, against whom Bradley Arant’s current client is adverse,’ the mall said.”
• “The mall also asked the court to ban Bradley Arant from ‘disclosing any confidential information obtained during its prior representation of plaintiff’ and said it had access to and made records of confidential information in the prior litigation. The mall said that information included ‘the structure of Hull and its affiliate companies, confidential information from witnesses… all three of whom are likely witness[es] in the instant matter.'”

Rachel Wasserman, principal of Wasserman Business Law in Toronto and an economic policy fellow at the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project and Social Capital Partners, writes: “Letting Private Equity Buy Law Firms May Stifle Service, Mobility” —

• “Private equity firms are quietly buying up and consolidating dental, accounting, medical, and veterinary practices, turning smaller independent firms into corporate chains. These firms offer professionals handsome payouts in exchange for ownership of their practice. Law firms are the final frontier for these consolidators. Recent developments in Arizona may finally give private equity the door into the legal industry that it’s been waiting for.”
• “If we allow for private equity ownership of law firms, it isn’t unreasonable to expect a similar result as we are seeing in other professions—lower quality of service and work for clients and lower job satisfaction for lawyers. As these firms consolidate, it will be even harder for independent lawyers to compete against the economies of scale of these corporate behemoths.”
• “In the longer term, this could mean less upward mobility for future generations of lawyers. It isn’t impossible for equity participation to disappear entirely if these corporate chains take over the market, which could also lead to the commodification of our profession. On the bright side, at least a handful of already rich partners and investors will have gotten even richer.”
• “The scale advantage that once insulated big law is disappearing. Thanks to AI and legal technology, large-scale projects such as due diligence and discovery no longer require armies of associates. Boutique firms, with lower overhead and without the burden of luxury offices and top-heavy compensation structures, are now able to compete, offering sophisticated legal services at a fraction of the price. We don’t need investment capital or consolidation to make law firms more efficient—the future lies in decentralization.”
  Firm Ownership Matters”
• “Legal regulatory bodies have largely prohibited nonlawyers from owning law firms, but these protections are starting to erode. Regulatory rollbacks often operate under the guise of altruism, purporting to promote access to justice. But maybe large multinationals and investors who have been shut out from this high-margin industry are just looking for access to more profits?”
• “Once law firms are controlled by private equity, such firms will be required to juggle fiduciary duties to both their investors and their clients. Private equity’s interest in owning law firms is merely a means to an end. Whether it’s practicing law or manufacturing widgets, these firms seek out the most lucrative investment opportunities for their investors and themselves.”
• “To understand the impact private equity ownership could have on the legal profession, we don’t have to look far. There are countless examples of PE firms’ impact on other professions that have already undergone significant PE consolidation.”
• “A study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association found that veterinarians working for large corporations reported more pressure to generate revenue than independent practices. An employee at two different corporate vets recounted that one of them had five price increases in one year, each between 3% and 6%, with no justification provided.”
• “Medical care also has suffered under private equity ownership. When private equity buys a hospital or physician practice, costs usually rise, as do the number of costly procedures and serious medical errors.”
• “Thinking law firms wouldn’t be faced with similar issues would be naive. Lawyers are no more virtuous than the countless veterinarians, doctors, and other professionals who have sold their practices to investors. Many senior partners have already built immense personal wealth, and if private equity begins consolidating law firms, they’ll undoubtedly be enticed by the same kinds of lucrative offers that younger lawyers will be unable to match.”
• “Clients come to us for independent, expert advice—not guidance shaped by firm profitability. We can’t allow the legal profession to be stripped of its integrity and independence in the name of efficiency and returns.”
• “Lawyers must not only resist private equity control within our own profession—we must also stand alongside other professionals facing the same threat. Our skills, our judgment, and our commitment to the public trust are needed now more than ever.”

“This lawyer was counsel to El Chapo — and could soon be one of Mexico’s judges” —

• “When the Mexican government announced it was holding the world’s largest judicial election — with voters electing thousands of magistrates and an entirely new Supreme Court — it hoped to bring fresh faces into the legal system.”
• “What it didn’t expect was El Chapo’s lawyer.”
• “Yet here is Silvia Delgado, 51, in a snug black minidress and four-inch heels, handing out leaflets and smiling brightly at vendors at a Sunday flea market. Eight years ago, she was counsel to Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán when he was extradited from this city’s fortresslike prison to New York. She accompanied his beauty queen wife, Emma Coronel, during the U.S. trial that ended with his life sentence. Now Delgado hopes to be a criminal-court judge, in a state where El Chapo’s Sinaloa cartel remains powerful. ‘I hope I can count on your vote!’ she calls to bargain-hunters.”
• “The June 1 judicial election, intended as a radical exercise in democracy, has increasingly been overshadowed by concerns about penetration by drug-trafficking groups. The Catholic Church and the U.S. government have warned that narcos may try to put their own candidates on the bench. There has been a string of startling revelations about the candidates. One used to be an attorney for a leader of the Zetas — a cartel that ‘disappeared’ thousands of people. Another candidate served six years in a Texas jail for possession of methamphetamine.”
• “President Claudia Sheinbaum has pointed out that the scandals involve only a small number of candidates. Legal scholars have cautioned that it’s no crime to defend an accused trafficker; Delgado said she provided ‘the same kind of defense as in any other job’ to El Chapo, a legendary drug lord whose exploits were chronicled in two Netflix series.”
• “Yet legal analysts say the reports about questionable candidates underscore the inadequate screening by Mexico’s government, which set few requirements for those running. Until now, most judges were selected through a civil-service system based on exams and experience. Under the new rules, legal scholars fear, candidates will owe their election not to the judicial system, but to groups that can round up votes for them — including from organized crime.”
• “Sheinbaum’s government, stung by the revelations, is now moving to exclude at least 18 judicial candidates. But analysts say the threat goes beyond the handful of ‘narco lawyers’ highlighted in media reports. Drug traffickers have already shown their political clout by installing scores of mayors in Mexican towns in recent years. Why wouldn’t they try to quietly impose their own judges?”
• “The new judicial system is the brainchild of former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Like President Donald Trump, the Mexican leader attacked judges who blocked his actions, calling them corrupt and politically biased. He also shared Trump’s enthusiasm for big, bold changes in government. If the judicial system wasn’t working, why not create a new one? When his Morena party swept elections last year, and Sheinbaum became his successor, they did just that.”
• “Now, the entire Supreme Court and half of federal judges — roughly 850 — will be chosen by voters. The other half will be replaced in 2027. Mexicans will also select about 1,800 state magistrates. The requirements to run are minimal: as little as three years’ legal experience, letters of recommendation from colleagues or neighbors, and lack of a criminal record. More than 50,000 candidates were screened in a few weeks by the federal and state governments.”
• “Meza’s group labeled Delgado a ‘highly risky’ candidate. ‘The minimum risk in these cases is conflict of interest,’ Meza said in a cafe in the capital’s trendy Roma neighborhood, where indie pop mixed with the hissing of milk being steamed for lattes. ‘You can’t one day be defending the Sinaloa cartel, and the next day be in a job where you’re judging a lot of people who belong to the Sinaloa cartel.'”
• “Delgado, who’s running for state judge, notes that drug trafficking is a federal crime, so she wouldn’t handle such cases. Still, she could face Sinaloa cartel members accused of homicide, extortion, car theft or small-scale drug sales.”
• “She dismisses the concerns raised by Defensorxs. ‘They don’t understand that when lawyers defend a person, what you defend are his individual rights. You defend his right to an appropriate technical defense.'”

“Private Equity Has Its Eye on US Law Firms” —

• “Law firms have long prided themselves on independence and tradition, but the reality is shifting. Smart money is eyeing firms as scalable, under-optimized businesses ripe for investment. A new wave of capital is coming—and it promises management expertise, technology upgrades, and demands for growth.”
• “But this isn’t just about who cuts the check. It’s about regulation, culture, and control. Before you crack the door open to outside capital, you need to know the rules of the game and the risks of letting the wrong partner in.”
• “After years of saturation in tech and healthcare, private equity investors are looking for new frontiers. Law firms offer exactly what they’re hunting for: recurring revenue, strong client relationships, and plenty of room for operational improvement. In a world obsessed with ‘platform plays,’ law firms represent untapped potential. They are inherently relationship driven, increasingly technology enabled, and capable of building cross-selling opportunities across service lines. The right investment could transform a regional player into a national powerhouse.”
• “Still, there’s a catch—and it’s a big one. ABA Model Rule 5.4 bars non-lawyers from sharing in legal fees or owning interests in law firms. It’s designed to protect attorney independence, ensuring that the duty to clients remains paramount. For private equity, that means the usual playbook of majority ownership and profit-sharing is off-limits. Ownership must stay firmly with licensed attorneys.”
• “In the U.S., without widespread reform, firms and investors are getting creative. Some spin up affiliated companies in tech or consulting where PE can invest. Others create management companies that own the operational backbone but leave the legal practice untouched. And some are partnering with ALSPs (alternative legal service providers) where private equity can take a more traditional stake.”
• “These models are innovative, but they’re not without risk. Ethical landmines are everywhere.”
• “Because here’s the hard truth: the firms that chase growth at all costs will find themselves answering to new masters who care more about quarterly returns than client outcomes. In other words: be careful what you wish for.”

David Kluft notes: “Can I represent a client whose culture I don’t understand?” —

• “Oregon Opinion 2024-3 addresses situations in which a lawyer is representing clients from another country, whose language and culture the lawyer does not share, and the lawyer therefore may not be aware of ‘cultural taboos, expectations, family norms, or communication and conflict resolution styles, factors that could significantly affect the quality or usefulness of the lawyer’s representation and advice.'”
• “Turning to the rarely discussed Rule 2.1, the opinion states that the duty of competency includes not just knowledge of the law, but an awareness of the ‘moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.'”
• “A lawyer who may not understand these factors does not have to turn down the representation but can gain the necessary competence through independent study, discussions with their clients, or associating with other competent assistance.”

“Ex-Eversheds employee barred after invoicing for pro bono work” —

• “According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Thomas Elliott was a non-legally qualified project coordinator at the firm and also served as club secretary for a local football team. When a footballer was investigated by a local sports association for disciplinary proceedings, Elliott introduced the player to the firm as a pro bono client.”
• “However, after the matter was resolved, Elliott created two invoices on the billing system seeking to recover costs associated with defending the footballer — even though the firm had worked on the matter on a pro bono basis.”
• “The first invoice, dated 2 August, totalled £79,926.95 and the amount sought was £39,963.47. A second invoice, issued two days later, totalled nearly £96,000. After these invoices came to the firm’s attention, he was subjected to an internal investigation.”
• “When interviewed, Elliott initially denied creating the second invoice. He later admitted to fabricating it using information from the firm’s system. Elliott resigned from the firm in October 2023.”
• “The SRA found that Elliott’s conduct was dishonest, involved misuse of confidential information, and was done without the firm’s knowledge or consent. Though the invoices were never paid, the regulator said Elliott’s actions made it ‘undesirable’ for him to be employed in legal practice.”
• “In mitigation, Elliott told the SRA that he acted not for personal gain but out of frustration over how the footballer and his family had been treated. He also wanted the firm to recover some costs. Elliott described his own behaviour as ‘hot-headed’.”
• “Whilst the SRA acknowledged his admission, remorse, cooperation, and lack of financial benefit — it nonetheless found the misconduct serious enough to warrant a ban. The regulator concluded: ‘a person willing to do this is not suitable to work in legal practice. If such conduct were to be repeated in future, it would pose a risk to clients and public trust.'”

“Judge disqualifies chief deputy clerk from practicing in her court” —

• “Mahoning County [Pennsylvania] Domestic Relations Court Judge Beth Smith issued three judgment entries Tuesday and Wednesday disqualifying Mahoning County Chief Deputy Clerk of Courts Jennifer Ciccone from acting as an attorney in Mahoning County Domestic Relations Court. The entries were filed in divorce cases Ciccone was handling as an attorney.”
• “All three cases were filed in 2024, with one of them filed in March 2024, one in July 2024 and one in August 2024.”
• “In her judgment entry, Smith cited a section of Ohio law stating that ‘no clerk of the supreme court or court of common pleas, or the deputy of either, shall practice in the particular court of which that person is clerk or deputy.'”
• “The entries each state that, ‘In light of such provision, attorney Jennifer Ciccone, serving in the capacity of chief deputy clerk of the Mahoning County Clerk of Courts, is no longer permitted to act as an attorney within this court.’ The entries each state that Ciccone is also ‘immediately disqualified to act as an attorney on behalf of the plaintiff in this case. The trial in this matter shall be (postponed) in order to give the Plaintiff a reasonable period of time to retain substitute legal counsel.'”
• “The case filed in August had several pretrial hearings last year followed by additional court dates set in January and February and then a hearing March 26. The case had trial dates Monday and Tuesday starting at 1 p.m. each day, but the case was not resolved.”
• “Don Hepfner, Domestic Relations Court administrator and magistrate, said Wednesday that because the three cases did not get resolved early this week, Judge Smith could not wait any longer and dismissed them. ‘The parties are going to be given the opportunity to find substitute counsel,’ Hepfner said Wednesday.”
• “Smith said last week she did not allow Ciccone to file any new divorce cases in her court and set strict deadlines for when the last three cases had to be completed.”

David Kluft notes: “If my client accuses me of ineffective assistance, can I use his confidential information to defend myself?” —

• “A RI lawyer’s former client was convicted of several criminal charges, and the former client claims the lawyer gave him ineffective assistance of counsel. The former client subpoenaed the lawyer to give testimony about his own alleged ineffective assistance.”
• “The lawyer wants to testify and defend himself, but doesn’t want to violate Rule 1.9(c), which prohibits the use of client information to the lawyer’s advantage.”
• “The RI Ethics Advisory Panel opines that the lawyer may testify without violating confidentiality rules, because responding to a client’s allegations about the lawyer’s representation is one of the express exceptions to Rule 1.6.”
• Text of the opinion: here.

“Turkey Leg Hut owner wants charges tossed, claims former lawyer helped secure indictment against him” —

• “Indicted Turkey Leg Hut owner Lyndell Price asked a federal judge to throw out arson charges brought against him last month, arguing his former defense attorney and the FBI violated his civil rights by working together to secure a plea deal with one of his co-defendants.”
• “In a motion to dismiss filed May 9, Price argued the attorney, Letitia Quinones-Hollins, has a conflict of interest that should quash the entire indictment. Quinones-Hollins didn’t respond to a request for comment Monday. “
• “The motion is based around Quinones-Hollins, Price and a third man, John Lee Price, whose cooperation with the FBI was central to bringing charges against the restaurateur. John Lee Price was a former employee of Lyndell Price. The men aren’t related.”
• “Last month, Lynn Price, John Lee Price and two other men were indicted in federal court on charges related to a 2020 fire at Bar 5015, a business down the street from the former Turkey Leg Hut. Lynn Price is accused of hiring a group of men to burn down the bar, which was owned by a business partner with whom he was feuding. John Lee Price and the other men were accused of setting the fire.”
• “The arson went unsolved for years, until John Lee Price was arrested in Mississippi in 2023 and accused of distributing more than 500 grams of fentanyl.”
• “After his arrest, John Lee Price spoke to federal agents and told them about his involvement in the arson and its connection to Lynn Price, an FBI agent testified on May 1. John Lee Price pleaded guilty to the drug charge in January and signed an agreement saying he would not ‘knowingly withhold evidence’ and be truthful to the United States.”
  Lynn Price’s challenge to his own indictment likens the plea to a cooperation agreement, and argues that Quinones-Hollins shouldn’t have been a part of it.”
• “According to Lynn Price, Quinones-Hollins represented him in 2020, on a matter related to ending his probation related to a 2016 tax crime conviction. Federal court records from that case list Quinones-Hollins as Lynn Price’s lead attorney.”
• “Lynn Price said Quinones-Hollins also acted at his representative some time in 2022 or early 2023, when the FBI attempted to contact him as part of their investigation into the arson. “
• “Quinones-Hollins began representing John Lee Price on his Mississippi drug charge in January 2024, according to court records. John Lee Price also retained Carl Moore, Quinones-Hollins’ law partner, and one of the former co-owners of the Turkey Leg Hut.”
• “Lynn Price argued Quinones-Hollins facilitated meetings between the FBI and John Lee Price, which were used to indict and indefinitely detain Lynn Price until a trial.”
• “‘Attorney Quinones-Hollins failed to protect Mr. Price’s rights when she was made aware of his desire to cooperate against Mr. Price and contacted the government to facilitate a proffer session implicating Mr. Price,’ Lynn Price’s current lawyers wrote.”
• “Both Quinones-Hollins and the government should have recognized the conflict and tried to avoid it, they wrote. “
• “Lynn Price’s attorney argued that Quinones-Hollins ‘owed a duty’ to him and violated his rights to effective counsel by favoring one client over another and that her actions led to him being indicted and detained. “
• “‘Both Mr. Price and John Lee Price paid Attorney Quinones-Hollins to represent them,’ the lawyers wrote. ‘There is no world where anyone can credibly state that Attorney Quinones-Hollins remained loyal to Mr. Price by representing the very person that implicated him in a federal investigation who agreed to cooperate against him at trial.'”