Bressler Risk Blog

Another interesting find from David Kluft: “Can the whole DOJ be disqualified if different government agencies have adverse interests?” —

• “A VA relator filed a qui tam action alleging illegal activities by five defense contractors and the Department of Defense in how contracts were awarded.”
• “He argued that the Attorney General should be disqualified from intervening on behalf of the United States, because it had obligations to both the U.S. Treasury (which was harmed by the illegal activities) and to the DOD (which he alleged was in on the illegal activities).”
• “The Court rejected the argument because the United States was a single client for conflict analysis. Also, the relator failed to identify a particular government attorney with this conflict, and in any case DOJ attorney conflicts are not imputed to the entire DOJ.”
• Decision: here.

New York State Bar “Opinion 1284 (09/16/2025) Multi-Jurisdictional Practice; Referral Fees; Division of Fees” —

• Topic: Multi-Jurisdictional Practice; Referral Fees; Division of Fees
• Digest: Lawyers admitted in New York and a foreign jurisdiction who associate with a lawyer admitted only in the foreign jurisdiction may divide a fee with that lawyer because Rule 1.5(g) explicitly permits lawyers associated in the same law firm to share fees. But the New York-licensed attorneys in the firm must exercise supervision pursuant to Rule 5.1 over the non-New York partner to the extent such partner’s conduct implicates the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

“A New Wrinkle in AI Hallucination Cases: Lawyers Dinged for Failing to Detect Opponent’s Fake Citations” —

• “A new decision from the California Court of Appeals adds an intriguing dimension to the growing body of AI hallucination sanctions cases, raising the question of a lawyer’s duty to detect fabricated, AI-generated citations — not in the lawyer’s own filings, but in an opponent’s.”
• “While the court did impose a $10,000 sanction on the attorney who filed two appellate briefs containing fake citations, it also declined to award attorneys’ fees or costs to the opposing counsel, because of counsel’s failure to report the fake citations to the court or even to detect them. That makes this what may be the first judicial decision to touch on on whether lawyers have a duty to detect and report their opponents’ AI-generated fake citations.”
• “The attorney, Amir Mostafavi, used ChatGPT and other AI tools to ‘enhance’ his appellate briefs, then failed to verify the citations before filing. The court found that 21 of 23 case quotations in his opening brief were fabricated, along with many more in the reply brief. Some cases did not discuss the topics for which they were cited, and others did not exist at all.”
• “‘Nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated,’ the court said.”
• “But what makes Noland unique is the court’s explicit decision not to award attorneys’ fees to the opposing counsel, despite finding the appeal frivolous and despite opposing counsel’s request for such an award. The court explained:”
• ” ‘We decline to order sanctions payable to opposing counsel. While we have no doubt that such sanctions would be appropriate in some cases, in the present case respondents did not alert the court to the fabricated citations and appear to have become aware of the issue only when the court issued its order to show cause.'”
• “Although the court did not elaborate beyond that statement, its reasoning raises the question: What is the role of opposing counsel in policing AI hallucinations? Put another way: What is a lawyer’s responsibility to detect and report an opponent’s use of hallucinated citations?”
• “The court appears to suggest that had opposing counsel spotted the fake citations and alerted the court, they might have been entitled to be awarded sanctions. Conversely, their failure to detect the fabrications made them undeserving of compensation.”
• “But in the AI era, could it be that lawyers have a heightened responsibility to check their opponents’ citations? Does the responsibility now extend not just to the lawyer’s clients, but to the courts?”
• “It is fair to say, I think, that the Noland court’s denial of attorney fees to defendants who failed to spot obvious fabrications hints at an evolving standard of professional competence.”
• “In denying opposing counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, the Noland court appeared to fault counsel on two counts: their failure to alert the court to the fabricated citations, and their failure to even notice them in the first place.”
• “The Noland court’s decision seems to suggest that, at minimum, lawyers who spot AI hallucinations and alert the court may be rewarded (or at least may be eligible to be reward), while those who miss them may not be entitled to fee-shifting even when the opposing brief is ultimately sanctioned.”
• “While Noland appears to be the first case to explicitly address opposing counsel’s role in detecting AI hallucinations, it likely won’t be the last. As AI-generated fake citations become more sophisticated and potentially harder to detect, courts will need to develop clearer standards about what level of diligence opposing counsel should exercise.”
• Decision: here.

We’re in the home stretch for the 2025 risk compensation survey.

We have 80+ participants and 430+ data points. 

I am still holding the “end of September” deadline, as it takes a few weeks to generate and distribute reports. That means this closes next week.

(If you need help or have questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly!)

If you haven’t participated yet and would like to receive a copy of the eventual report / personal benchmark, please do!

• Background details on the survey are here, in case you missed that update (or the big, bold reminder in the daily emails).
• A direct link to the survey is: here.
• And for those of you who want to help, please do pass on details to your internal and external colleagues, and feel free to like/re-share our LinkedIn post (for the few risk professions who aren’t already reading the blog)

Thanks for reading. Regular risk updates will be back tomorrow!

David Kluft notes: “If the judge exchanged a chocolate cake recipe with opposing counsel’s mom, can I get her recused?” —

• “In a TN civil bench trial, the transcript began with a partial conversation between defense counsel and the judge about a chocolate cake recipe, and a strange reference by the judge that she had already ‘told [plaintiff’s counsel] about the chocolate cake recipe,’ followed by laughter.”
• “The ‘chocolate cake recipe’ conversation was referencing the fact that the judge’s son and defense counsel were best friends as children in the 1980s, and the judge had exchanged a cake recipe with defense counsel’s mom, but then the families fell out of touch.”
• “This relationship was apparently disclosed prior to trial, but it was not captured on the transcript. Plaintiff did not move to recuse before trial, but did so after he didn’t like the judgment. Plaintiff claimed that bringing up the chocolate cake recipe relationship 10 seconds before trial started was essentially an unfair ambush that caught him unaware.”
• “On appeal, the TN Supreme Court affirmed denial of the recusal motion, holding that the plaintiff did not timely move for recusal, that the mere existence of a friendship between a judge and a lawyer is not enough for recusal, and that a friendship between the judge’s son and defense counsel that ended thirty years earlier was not enough to raise a legitimate question about the judge’s impartiality.”
• Decision: here.

“Some law firms that cut deals with Trump take cases opposing his administration” —

• “When nine U.S. law firms struck agreements with President Donald Trump in March and April to head off a crackdown on their business, it prompted broad concern that the deals would deter them from taking cases against his policies. Months later, at least four of them are involved in lawsuits opposing Trump’s administration in cases involving transgender rights, immigration, tariffs and wind power, court records show.”
• “The four firms are Latham & Watkins; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Milbank. They represent clients that have sued the administration since May, after the agreements were reached.”
• “It is unclear whether these four firms or others may still be steering clear of certain cases for fear of drawing Trump’s ire or imperiling their agreements with the Republican president. Some legal experts said law firms may be wrestling with competing pressures, since representing clients against the government is a key driver of business and prestige.”
• “‘A lot of litigation is opposed to the federal government,’ said Michael McCabe, a business lawyer who advises other attorneys on ethics matters. ‘All of that work is an important part of a law firm economy.'”
  “A Reuters investigation in July found that dozens of major law firms, wary of retaliation, have broadly scaled back pro bono work, workplace diversity initiatives and litigation that could place them in conflict with Trump. Reuters also found that top firms had pulled back from litigation against the U.S. government.”
• “Legal industry experts said the lawsuits involving the four firms that have reached agreements with Trump include the kinds of matters large firms cannot easily give up, serving important clients or spearheaded by key lawyers at the firms.”

David Kluft asks: “If opposing counsel needs to prove my income in 2023, and she learned my income while representing me in 2021, does she have a conflict?” —

• “An AL lawyer briefly represented a man in a lease dispute in 2021. In 2023, the lawyer represented a party adverse to the same man in a custody and child support trial. The man moved to disqualify the lawyer because, although the lease dispute was otherwise unrelated to the custody dispute, the lawyer did learn information about the man’s income in 2021, and his income was relevant to the issue of child support.”
• “The Court of Appeals acknowledged that this might have created a former client conflict of interest under Rule 1.9. However, it turns out the man changed jobs in between the two cases, so anything the lawyer knew about his income back in 2021 had become irrelevant. Motion denied.”
• Decision: here.

“Uvalde CISD votes to keep law firm amid conflict of interest concerns” —

• “The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District voted to continue to use legal services from a law firm that also represented a former officer facing charges in connection with the Robb Elementary shooting, despite concerns of a conflict of interest.”
• “On Monday night, the UCISD board voted to continue to use Thompson & Horton legal services, as assigned by the district. The board also authorized the superintendent to obtain an independent ethics attorney to review ‘any actual or potential conflict of interest’ related to the Robb Elementary litigation.”
• “In addition, the board passed a motion to waive attorney-client privilege to the independent attorney to produce Thompson & Horton’s conflict of interest ethics analyst.”
• “‘We’ve been trying to do what’s right, but you’re only as good as your legal team,’ trustee Jesse Rizo said. ‘We’ve been failed…time and time again.'”
• “Walsh Gallegos represented the district during a lawsuit from KSAT and other media organizations to make the records public, as the district had sought to withhold documents and information connected to the massacre. Two teachers and 19 students died in the shooting on May 24, 2022.”
• “Court records show that Thompson & Horton attorneys represented former UCISD officer Adrian Gonzales and current UCISD board Vice President JJ Suarez in a separate federal lawsuit related to the shooting filed by several families of the victims.”
• “The school board voted to release all records in July and end the lawsuit after a Texas appeals court ruled in favor of KSAT and the other news outlets.”

“Private Equity Deals Leave State Accounting Boards on Sidelines” —

• “State regulators are sounding the alarm as private equity-backed accounting firms test the limits of longstanding rules and laws designed to protect the objectivity of licensed CPAs. Firms that have cut PE deals rely on a complex legal structure that has touched off a cascade of ethics and professional conduct concerns. State regulators fear the evolving ownership models could erode the value of professional accounting licenses and ultimately undermine the capital markets that depend on auditors’ work.”
• “State laws hamper regulators’ ability to oversee the new arrangements because of the narrow scope of firm licensing requirements—a gap some state boards aim to close.”
• “‘It’s a very profit-driven, short-term ownership structure,’ said Haley Lyons, chair of the Oregon Board of Accountancy. ‘How do we ensure long-term relationships for members of the public? How do we ensure quality standards are upheld over time?'”
• “The effort to bolster oversight comes as a rising number of US accounting firms have cut deals with third party investors in the last six years, with nearly half of the top 30 firms now at least partially owned by private equity.”
• “The volume and speed of the ownership overhauls has caught boards of accountancy flat-footed as they look to enforce state ownership and ethics requirements for licensed CPA firms meant to ensure companies and private individuals work with a dependable, independent accountant.”
• “Firms themselves are looking for more guidance. Grant Thornton Advisors LLC, one of the biggest US firms with private equity ownership, said in its latest transparency report that it put in place its own safeguards to ensure its auditors make critical decisions regarding promotions, staffing and its client roster. But the firm and others are calling for updated conflict of interest rules to help manage a complex mix of threats to their independence.”
  “The largest private equity-backed accounting firms operate nationwide and are licensed in multiple states, making it harder for individual states to police requirements that at least 51% of a registered firm’s owners are credentialed CPAs. In some cases, regulators don’t know that a firm has new non-CPA owners.”
• “The difference for private equity-backed firms is they have a contractual agreement spelling out what the firm has to achieve in order to earn periodic payments from the outside investors, said Joe Tarasco, CEO of Accountants Advisory Group LLC.”
• “Industry watchers fear the profit targets common among private equity-backed businesses might encourage auditors to take shortcuts or accept work that falls outside their qualifications.”
• “State accounting boards are also monitoring an industry ethics committee that is working to provide clearer guidance as firms navigate potential conflicts of interest among their auditors, the PE-backed business, and the universe of companies also held by their outside investors.”
• “An initial proposal from the American Institute of CPAs ethics body doesn’t go far enough to address the pressures CPAs will face to meet their investors’ demands, state regulators have told the committee.”
• “‘The guidance cannot resolve a fundamental structural issue: the inherent conflict between private equity investment objectives and professional independence requirements,’ the Washington State Board of Accountancy in a letter to the committee. The board didn’t respond to a request for comment.”
• “Firms should set up a framework to preserve the independence of their accountants before any deals close, Grant Thornton said in a statement to Bloomberg Tax.”
• “Many state regulators want to see the ethics committee’s approach before revising their own licensing requirements.”
• “‘I haven’t seen a case where the existence of private equity on the attest side of an audit practice has resulted in a negative impact,’ said Mullen, who serves on the Virginia board. ‘This is not to say that we will wait until that problem occurs. We won’t.'”

“Plaintiffs’ atty family ties trash class action vs Pepperidge Farm” —

• “A state appeals panel has pulled the plug, for now, on a class action lawsuit accusing snack food maker Pepperidge Farm of violating Illinois’ biometrics privacy law, as appellate justices said a Cook County judge was wrong to green light the lawsuit even though the lead plaintiff’s daughter worked as an attorney at one of the law firms leading the lawsuit.”
  “In the ruling, the justices said Loftus should not have allowed the class action to go forward without at least asking more questions about potential conflicts of interest among the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case.”
• “In particular, the justices noted that the named plaintiff in the action, Tyrone Brewer, who was to act as the class representative, is father to Celetha Chatman, one of two members of the Chicago law firm, known as Community Lawyers, which was approved by Loftus to serve as class counsel to lead the action. According to court documents, Chatman works at the firm alongside her law partner, attorney Michael Wood.”
• “While Chatman is not listed as a ‘class counsel’ on the case, Wood is, the appellate justices noted. And, they said, that should have raised significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest.”
• “‘Here, we conclude that certification was unreasonable given the risks to the class arising from the fact that the sole representative plaintiff is Chatman’s father, as well as the relationships between Chatman and the attorneys appointed as class counsel,’ the appellate justices wrote.”
• “‘… Significantly, the court explicitly and correctly recognized that the continued involvement of plaintiff’s daughter as class counsel posed a conflict of interest that might harm unrepresented class members. It hypothesized that plaintiff (Chatman’s father) might decline a settlement offer that would otherwise be in the best interest of the class members, because of an interest in maximizing attorneys’ fees for class counsel, including his daughter. In recognition of this conflict, it precluded Chatman from serving as class counsel.”
• “The lawsuit accused Pepperidge Farm of allegedly violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by allegedly requiring employees to scan their hands to verify their identities to gain entrance to the company’s bakery facility in suburban Downers Grove.”
• “In May 2022, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit in federal court, but immediately refiled their claims in Illinois state court in Cook County Circuit Court. The new complaint identified only Drew as Brewer’s lawyer. According to court documents, Drew also has a past affiliation with Chatman’s firm, as a former law clerk at the firm.”
• “However, when the plaintiffs filed their request for class certification in April 2023, the new motion included two additional lawyers, including Wood, of Community Lawyers, and Daniel Brown, of the firm of Williams Barber & Morel, of Chicago.”
• “In her approval, Loftus specifically addressed Chatman’s involvement in the case, noting she was Brewer’s daughter and expressly forbidding her from taking part in the case. However, she still granted the motion to name Chatman’s law partner, Wood, and Chatman’s firm as class counsel. Loftus also named Drew as class counsel, despite his past affiliations with Chatman and Wood and their firm.”
• “Pepperidge Farm appealed, arguing the certification was improper because of the clear potential for conflict of interest in allowing Chatman’s firm to represent Chatman’s father in a class action potentially worth many millions of dollars, or more.”
  “On appeal, the First District justices agreed the risk of conflict of interest was too high in this case. The decision was authored by Justice Aurelia Pucinski. Justices Terrence J. Lavin and Cynthia Y. Cobbs concurred in the ruling.”
• “The justices noted Loftus’ decision ignored longstanding precedent that should exclude not only Chatman, but her firm, as well.”
• “‘… We are troubled that the court failed to conduct an adequate factual inquiry to assess whether the other attorneys could remain as class counsel, given their relationships with Chatman,’ Pucinski wrote for the panel.”
• “The justices further noted their concerns over the ethics of the attorney arrangement in the case were bolstered by past potential ethics violations identified against Chatman and Wood by a federal judge in other cases. Specifically, Chatman and Wood were admonished by federal judges ‘concerning their misconduct in fabricating (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) cases for the purpose of collecting attorney’s fees.’ A federal judge in 2020 threatened them with ‘severe sanctions’ … ‘should that conduct occur in the future.'”

“Comptroller report alleges Norcross-founded firm violated disclosure, conflict of interest laws” —

• “The state’s acting comptroller released a searing report against an insurance firm founded by Democratic South Jersey power broker George E. Norcross on Tuesday, accusing Conner Strong & Buckelew of violating disclosure laws and improperly influencing public contracting processes. “
• “Acting Comptroller Kevin Walsh said Conner Strong & Buckelew and affiliated firms steered public contracts toward themselves via conflicts of interest. A spokesperson for Norcross called the report politically motivated and vehemently denied wrongdoing.”
• “‘There is no clearer conflict of interest than when a company writes the RFP, reviews the bids, and then steers the contract to itself,’ Walsh said in a press release. ‘What makes this worse is that the vendor concealed from the State and its public entity clients that it was operating on all sides of contracting processes that are supposed to protect taxpayer funds.'”
• “Conner Strong & Buckelew is one of the country’s 20 largest insurance brokerage firms. The comptroller’s office said the findings came after a routine review of HIF procurement proposals. The HIFs at the center of the investigation represent some 40,000 local government employees and about 109,700 total enrollees.”
• “The report says municipalities in the state are allowed to form health insurance funds (HIFs) to provide health insurance to employees and pool risk across a whole region to lower costs. The report found Conner Strong & Buckelew and its ‘alter ego,’ PERMA, ‘improperly gained control’ over HIFs’ contracting processes, allegedly competing for and winning the same government contracts they helped write.”
• “‘CSB and PERMA purport to be separate, independent entities linked only by a parent company. CSB generally serves as program manager, acting as broker and underwriter for insurance funds, while PERMA is contracted as the administrator, managing day-to-day operations for HIFs. … [The report] found, however, CSB and PERMA function as one entity, with PERMA under CSB’s supervision, sharing leadership and employees,’ the report’s announcement states.”
• “The report also accused Conner Strong & Buckelew of fabricating the existence of a public insurance entity billed Hi Fund.”

“Colorado justices tell Arapahoe County judge to reconsider disqualification of law firm from case” —

• “The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday directed an Arapahoe County judge to reconsider his prior decision to remove a law firm from a civil lawsuit due to a conflict of interest. In an unsigned Sept. 8 order, the justices laid out specific issues the judge needed to examine before concluding that the work an attorney performed years ago for one set of litigants precluded his new law firm from representing the opposing litigants in a different lawsuit.”
• “In 2016, the family of oil and gas executive Jack Grynberg filed suit over the ownership and control of his companies. Evidence indicated Grynberg’s cognitive decline resulted in him falling victim to scams. Grynberg, who died in 2021, lost the litigation.”
• “In 2022, the administrator of his estate filed a malpractice suit against Dorsey & Whitney LLP, the law firm that represented Grynberg. The complaint alleged they ‘pursued scorched-earth litigation tactics’ that isolated Grynberg from his family and prevented him from receiving medical care for his cognitive issues.”
• “Two of Grynberg’s adult children moved to intervene and sought to remove the lawyers at Richards Carrington, LLP, who were representing Dorsey & Whitney. They argued one partner at the defense firm, Michael Mulvania, represented them in the prior litigation and there was a ‘substantial risk’ he possessed confidential information that was relevant to the new lawsuit.”
• “In an April 8 order, District Court Judge Don J. Toussaint agreed with the Grynberg siblings.”
• “‘Mulvania substantially participated in the 2016 lawsuit. Mulvania billed 812.5 hours for work, and he was privy to privileged and confidential information throughout his representation in that matter,’ wrote Toussaint. ‘Based on the totality of the circumstances, disqualification is warranted.'”
• “Richards Carrington turned to the Supreme Court. The attorneys argued any confidential information had already been disclosed publicly, that the firm had already implemented an ‘ethical screen’ excluding Mulvania from the case and that Mulvania had ‘limited involvement’ in the original litigation over Grynberg’s companies.”
• “‘To hold otherwise — in a case where nonparties have moved to disqualify counsel based upon the most attenuated and remote of circumstances — would dangerously expand the scope of permissible disqualifications, effectively prohibit ethical screens in any circumstance, and prejudice law firms of all sizes while incentivizing and proliferating the use of disqualification motions as litigation tactics,’ wrote the attorneys.”
• “The Grynberg children, the estate administrator and Toussaint all responded to Richards Carrington’s petition to defend the decision. Generally, they argued Mulvania was potentially exposed to confidential information about the Grynberg children’s impressions of their father’s cognitive capacity. Mulvania’s new firm could use that knowledge to expose potential inconsistencies in the Grynberg children’s accounts to defend against the malpractice case.”
• “Yet, ‘Mulvania’s duties to Rachel and Stephen (Grynberg) as his former clients would prevent him from revealing the confidential information that Rachel and Stephen disclosed to him (or didn’t), thereby compromising his duty to zealously represent the Dorsey Defendants. That is a textbook former-client conflict of interest,’ wrote attorneys for the estate administrator.”
• “Richards Carrington countered that there were no facts ‘or even plausible theories’ that the Grynberg children would have disclosed relevant and confidential information to Mulvania during the short time he worked on the prior litigation. Moreover, the Grynbergs had already commented publicly on the complained-about details.”
• “The Supreme Court’s order noted the rules of professional conduct do typically prohibit a lawyer in one case from going up against their former client in the ‘same or a substantially related matter.’ But rather than rule on the disqualification issue, the justices ordered Toussaint to address additional relevant factors before he disqualified Richards Carrington.”

“Supreme Court denies leave to appeal in case alleging lawyer’s conflict of interest” —

• “New Zealand’s Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal requested by an applicant alleging a conflict of interest or apparent bias against the chair of the respondent expert consenting panel, convened under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. “
• “In Glenpanel Development Limited v Expert Consenting Panel, [2025] NZSC 109, the matter revolved around the issue of whether to disqualify the panel chair due to a conflict of interest or apparent bias. “
• “A judge of New Zealand’s High Court saw no conflict of interest in:
  • the panel chair’s status as a partner in law firm Brookfields Lawyers, which acted for a competitor to the applicant
  • his role as an advisor who counselled the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport on the 2020 legislation’s meaning”
• “The High Court judge found no question of apparent bias or predetermination where there was no evidence that the applicant’s competitor was interested in opposing the development subject of the proceedings. The applicant appealed. New Zealand’s Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court judge and declined to disqualify the panel chair based on a conflict of interest or apparent bias. “
• “However, the appeal court allowed the appeal on other grounds. It directed the panel to reconsider the application in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency, [2024] NZSC 26. “
• “The applicant alleged a live issue since the lawfulness of the panel chair’s conduct might impact the cost amount or require payment to the Environmental Protection Agency under the 2020 legislation’s processes for administrative cost recovery. “
• “The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the chair has since resigned from the panel and that the 2020 legislation has since been repealed. “
• “The Supreme Court accepted that a question of general or public importance might have arisen concerning the tests for apparent bias and conflicts of interest for lawyers acting in a quasi‑judicial capacity as expert consenting panel members. “
• “However, the Supreme Court ruled that this issue was no longer live in this matter, given that the chair would not participate in the panel’s reconsideration. “
• “The Supreme Court found that the applicant appeared to have raised the issue of exposure to administrative costs as an afterthought. The Supreme Court noted that it had no information about the criteria applied or the amount potentially attributed to the appeal court’s refusal to disqualify the panel chair. “

New York City Bar: “Formal Opinion 2025-5: Conflicts of Interest Arising out of a Lawyer’s Personal Beliefs” —

• “The Professional Ethics Committee issued an ethics opinion addressing when a lawyer’s personal moral, political, social, or religious beliefs may create a conflict of interest that requires declining or withdrawing from a representation under Rule 1.7(a)(2) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “While the profession presumes lawyers can set aside personal beliefs and maintain professional detachment, the opinion acknowledges rare cases where deeply held views may pose a ‘significant risk’ of materially limiting the lawyer’s ability to represent a client competently and diligently.”
• “In such cases, the lawyer must assess, both subjectively and objectively, whether their beliefs interfere with their professional judgment. If the risk is significant and cannot be reasonably managed, even with the client’s informed consent, the lawyer must not undertake or withdraw from the representation.”
• “However, the opinion emphasizes that such conflicts are uncommon and do not impute to other lawyers in the firm. It reaffirms the core principle that a lawyer’s representation does not equate to an endorsement of the client’s beliefs or conduct and that fair legal representation, even for unpopular clients or causes, remains a foundational duty of the profession.”

“Scandals Erased, Editors Paid: How Big Law Firms Try to Control Their Wikipedia Pages” —

• “Wikipedia is an unavoidable digital reality for Big Law. The popular online encyclopedia is often one of the top results when a potential client, lateral hire, or journalist searches a firm’s name. That visibility creates both opportunity and risk: firms want their Wikipedia pages to be accurate and up to date, but they must navigate a platform whose rules forbid promotional editing, and where anyone, whether friend or foe, can make changes. According to Wikipedia Statistics, in 2024, people from all over the world made 597 million edits, 72 million of which were in English.”
• “But a close analysis reveals a murky battleground featuring law firm employees, Wikipedia editors, activists and the public who tussle over how law firms are represented to the world. After analyzing thousands of edits to law firm pages and speaking to multiple sources, Law.com International can reveal how some law firms have used paid editors, often covertly, or been blocked for conflicts of interest, and how details on sex scandals have quietly disappeared, political language has been softened, and hyperbole added, removed, and then reintroduced. It reveals the uneasy reality law firms face in trying to coexist with a world famous platform that has no stake in their reputations.”
• “This tension drives the strategies law firms adopt when dealing with their pages. And when managing their Wikipedia presence, law firms tend to fall into three broad camps: hidden, transparent, and hands-off.”
• “It is not against Wikipedia’s rules for firms to request changes through the platform’s ‘talk’ pages, where people discuss what changes were made, and the reasons for making them; what is important to Wikipedia, however, is that firms do not directly edit their own articles.”
• “Law.com’s analysis shows that several major law firms, or individuals that can be linked to them, have directly edited their own pages, sometimes openly, but often with the benefit of anonymity. It’s a practice that flouts the site’s rules, according to Wikipedia editors—it is a lesson that some firms have learned the hard way.”
• “Clifford Chance’s page carries a warning that an editor with a ‘close connection’ to the firm has made changes, a banner that sits at the very top of the page. Law.com analysis shows at least three edits in 2019 by an account matching the name of a digital marketing executive who worked for the firm at the time. The firm did not respond to requests for comment.”
• “Similarly, in 2024, an account called ‘DLAP comms’ made a series of edits to DLA Piper’s main Wikipedia page. Wikipedia has since blocked the account. A person with knowledge of the firm’s approach said that the firm only updates factual details in the right-hand information panel, not the main article text, adding: ‘We take a transparent approach, and do not update the main content, in line with Wikipedia’s guidance.'”
• “Wikipedia has also blocked an account by the name ‘Quinnemanuel’; in 2009, the account declared it was part of Quinn Emanuel’s marketing team and has made several edits. Some of the changes were reversed by an experienced Wikipedia editor. A person with knowledge of the firm said that the firm explored Wikipedia editing ‘many years ago but recognised Wikipedia’s policies against self-editing’, adding ‘we respect Wikipedia’s editorial independence’.”
• “One account linked to a current employee at A&O Shearman made several edits to legacy firm Allen & Overy’s page. The changes were generally small and included updating the headcount and revenue figures and the name of the managing partner.”
  But these are not the only instances of self-editing.”
• “A person with knowledge of Big Law marketing said that, to help ward off scrutiny around the firms they look after, they often make changes to Wikipedia page via anonymous accounts on mobile devices so it can’t be traced back to the firm in question.”
• “A Morgan Lewis employee admitted to self editing in 2020, apologising for changes she had made regarding the firm’s awards and honours.”
• “Some firms take a completely arms-length, either ignoring or avoiding Wikipedia, leaving their firm’s pages entirely in the hands of the public. They may monitor their pages, but some sources say they avoid editing for fear of sparking scrutiny.”
• “Wikipedia’s conflict of interest (COI) guidlines reads: ‘Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article’s content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.'”
• “Other firms hire nameless editors who do not disclose their paid status, in direct violation of Wikipedia’s rules. This is according to multiple Wikipedia editors interviewed by Law.com who make a living by making covert edits to business pages. One editor specialises in law firm pages.”
• “On condition of anonymity, the law firm editor told Law.com that law firms of all sizes have employed him to make undisclosed edits. Such edits included inserting words such ‘elite’, emphasising accolades while de-emphasising or even removing law firm controversies; one editor said he ‘knows the balance’ and can make pages read positively without immediately drawing the attention of other editors.”

David Kluft notes: “Is a Signal chat with my client’s PR company protected by the Attorney Client privilege?”

• “A famous actor filed a sexual harassment lawsuit in SDNY against a group of studio execs. The execs through counsel hired a PR agency, and then the execs and their lawyers participated in a signal chat with the PR agency about building a website (thelawsuitinfo.com) to publicize their version of the story.”
• “The execs claimed the Signal chat was privileged and not subject to discovery. The Court disagreed – the Signal chat mostly concerned the content of and PR strategy for the website, not legal advice.”
• “The Court distinguished between a PR strategy aimed at a client’s reputational problems and one aimed at a client’s legal problems, and concluded that ‘a media campaign [aimed at the public in order to protect a party’s reputation] is not a litigation strategy.'”
• “Finally, where the PR agency was not the functional equivalent of an employee, any privilege would have been waived. The Court also noted that, to the extent the execs claimed that their PR strategy was aimed at influencing jurors (which they did not claim), it could have been a violation of Rule 3.6 (trial publicity). Motion to compel granted.”
• Decision: Here.

David Kluft notes: “If I settle a dispute with successor counsel, is the settlement agreement a “fee sharing” arrangement?” —

• “CO Law Firm A accused Firm B of poaching its employees and its clients, and threatened to sue. The firms settled their dispute by agreeing that Firm B would pay Firm A 35% of the fees recovered from the poached cases.”
• “Firm B later argued that the agreement was unenforceable because it did not comply with Rule 1.5(d), which allows fee sharing only if both firms take responsibility for the case and the client consents.”
• “The CO court held that because the firms were not really fee sharing, but rather were better characterized as predecessor and successor counsel, Rule 1.5(d) did not apply so the settlement agreement was enforceable.”
• Decision: here.

As well as: “If I received information from a prospective client that used to be material, but it’s not material anymore, can I be adverse to them?” —

• “A CA law firm received a bunch of information about a trust dispute from a prospective client, including his intention to sue, his theory of the case, and documents supporting the theory.”
• “The firm later realized it already had a relationship with a probable opposing party and declined the case. When the prospective client sued the opposing party, the firm appeared for the opposing party.”
• “The prospective client moved to disqualify, arguing that he had provided material harmful information to the firm. The firm argued that the information wasn’t material anymore since it had been disclosed in the complaint.”
• “The CA Court of Appeal agreed that materiality should be determined as of the time of the requested disqualification, not as of the time the information was transmitted. Nevertheless, here the information transmitted included stuff that wasn’t already revealed by the complaint, so disqualification was affirmed.”
• Decision: here.

“Big Law’s Trump Deals Pose Ongoing Risks, Keker Leaders Warn” —

• “President Trump’s deals with Big Law firms pose ongoing risks to the profession, said leaders of a law firm that was among the first to criticize the pacts. There’s risk the White House will call on dealmaking firms to justify rolling federal troops into US cities or some other legally suspect tactic, said Steven Ragland, associate general counsel at Keker, Van Nest & Peters. The administration also may again use threats to bend law firms to its will, he said.”
• “‘When the bully says, ‘OK now it’s time to give me your lunch money again,’ what’s going to happen?’ Ragland said in an interview. ‘We will see what will be done and what sort of damage might be done.'”
• “Bloomberg Law’s wide-ranging interview Sept. 4 with Ragland and Laurie Mims, the firm’s managing partner, show that some legal leaders remain as concerned about the Trump deals as when they first spoke out against them more than five months ago.”
  “In addition to the deals, Mims said she is concerned about Trump’s personal attacks against judges who have ruled against him. District court judges she knows have received ‘terrifying’ hate mail and threats, she said, without identifying those judges.”
• “In the weeks after Trump’s attacks, Keker, Van Nest signed an amicus brief backing Perkins Coie’s fight against an order, senior partners penned an essay in the New York Times titled, ‘Our Law Firm Won’t Cave to Trump. Who Will Join Us?,’ and firm co-founder John Keker appeared in a ’60 Minutes’ segment where he called firms’ deals with Trump ‘bribery.'”
• “There’s a risk firms that cut deals with the administration could be perceived as having a conflict of interest fighting for clients against the government, Ragland said. ‘If I’ve basically signed on to not challenge the administration in certain ways, or that’s the implication, I don’t know whether it actually creates a conflict, but I think it is a concern,’ he said. “
• “Mims said the firm’s nearly 50 partners unanimously supported the decision to speak out. Clients ‘pretty universally’ responded well to the firm’s stand, and some new business came to the firm because of its stance, she said.”
• “‘There are still risks of losing clients or the government taking action against our firm or others,’ Mims said. ‘We’re aware the risks are there. But it was the thing we all felt we had to do. It was just such a clear violation of what we understand to be our constitutional system.'”
• “‘Our associates were united in thanking us for doing it and telling their friends, ‘My firm did this, how about yours?’’ Ragland said. ‘It’s only helped with our recruitment.'”
• “Keker in July hired associate JiLon Li from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, one of the dealmaking firms, which has seen departures from its litigation group in the aftermath of its agreement, Mims said. ‘These firms have suffered a significant reputational hit with law students,’ she added.”