Bressler Risk Blog

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.”

Taking a moment to update everyone on the 2025 risk compensation survey.

As of about a week into the exercise, we have 55+ participants and 225+ data points.

I’ve had several requests about report publication timing, as compensation season is nigh.

So I’m going to try to hold the line on the “end of September” deadline, as it takes a few weeks to generate and distribute reports.

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/reshare 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!

“Prosecutor says fatal arson suspect’s attorney may have conflict” —

• “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is questioning whether attorney Kevin A. Luibrand should be removed as counsel to the man accused of setting a 2013 fire in Schenectady that killed a 32-year-old father and his three young children.”
• “In a motion filed in U.S. District Court, a federal prosecutor asked a judge to schedule a hearing to advise Edward A. Leon that Luibrand has a potential conflict of interest because his law firm also represents an ATF special agent in an unrelated sexual harassment case pending in Kentucky. The agent, Lauren Viup, previously worked in the Albany office of the ATF, and she had been part of the team that reopened the investigation of Leon, leading to his indictment in early August.”
• “‘The government requests that the court determine whether a conflict does or could exist, whether the conflict can be waived, and if so, whether the defendant will knowingly waive his right to conflict-free representation,’ assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander P. Wentworth-Ping wrote in the government’s motion.”
• “Luibrand’s firm represents Viup in a federal lawsuit she filed against former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the ATF in June 2024 when she was working for the ATF in Albany. The case centers on sexual harassment and physical abuse she alleges she was subjected to by another ATF agent when she was working in Louisville from 2019 to 2022.”

“Cannabis, Conflicts And Self-Dealing At Issue In Illinois Complaint” —

• “The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging misconduct by an attorney who had been employed by three law firms (designated as Firms A, B and C) beginning in 2019.”
  • ‘From November 18, 2019 until March 3, 2021, Respondent was employed fulltime as a lawyer in the Boston office of a large international law firm (“Firm A”), where he concentrated his practice in the areas of private equity and corporate mergers and acquisitions. At all times related to the events described in this complaint, Respondent, as an attorney employee of Firm A, owed a fiduciary duty to Firm A and its partners to act with the highest degree of good faith and honesty in all matters relating to Firm A’s business and property and to avoid using the Firm A’s goodwill, reputation, and resources for his own personal benefit.’
• “He allegedly owed similar duties to Firms B and C.”
  • ‘Respondent left Firm A on March 3, 2021. From April 5, 2021 until June 1, 2022, Respondent was employed full-time as a lawyer in the Boston office of a large international law firm (“Firm B”), where he continued to concentrate his practice in the areas of private equity and corporate mergers and acquisitions. At all times related to the events described in this complaint, Respondent, as an attorney employee of Firm B, owed a fiduciary duty to the firm and its partners to act with the highest degree of good faith and honesty in all matters relating to Firm B’s business and property and to avoid using the Firm’s goodwill, reputation, and resources for his own personal benefit.’
  • ‘Respondent left Firm B on June 1, 2022. From September 6, 2022 until July 13, 2024, Respondent was employed full-time as a lawyer in the Denver office of a large international law firm (“Firm C”) where he continued to concentrate his practice in the areas of private equity and corporate mergers and acquisitions. At all times related to the events described herein, Respondent, as an attorney-employee of Firm C, owed a fiduciary duty to the Firm and its partners to act with the highest degree of good faith and honesty in all matters relating to Firm C’s business and property and to avoid using Firm C’s goodwill, reputation, and resources for his own personal benefit.’
• “He was connected with T.S. and got involved with Kush Kart”
  • ‘Between September 8, 2020 and November 1, 2020, T.S. asked for and Respondent provided legal assistance and legal advice relating to the drafting of contracts, permitting, and applications to be submitted to the CCC on behalf of Kush Kart. Respondent did not execute an engagement agreement with T.S. or with Kush Kart, or explain to T.S. that he was not acting as her lawyer. Based on the fact that T.S. saw on the CCC’s Equity Services List that Respondent offered pro bono legal services to SEP participants, that T.S. asked Respondent for and received from Respondent legal advice and legal services, and that Respondent was communicating with Respondent from Respondent’s Firm A email account, T.S. reasonably believed that Respondent was her lawyer.’
• “Firm A discovered the Kush Kart connection”
  • ‘On or about March 3, 2021, employees at Firm A discovered that Respondent was communicating with T.S. about Kush Kart from his Firm A email account, and directed Respondent to inform T.S. that Firm A was not representing her. Respondent sent T.S. a text message stating, “Can you reply to the email I’m about to send you from my firm. They think I was providing services under the [Firm A] brand to Kush Kart and not in my personal capacity. A simple ‘Lol I know and thanks.” Respondent then emailed T.S. stating, “As already stated at the outset: I write to clarify that I have been assisting you in my personal capacity and not on behalf of [Firm A]. You do not and have not formed an attorney client relationship with [Firm A]. If you have any questions, please direct them to my personal email address which is as follows: [Respondent’s personal email address].” Less than 20 minutes later, T.S. responded to Respondent’s Firm A email address, as Respondent instructed, “Lol I know and thanks.” Respondent’s email did not make it clear that Respondent was not acting as an attorney for T.S. or for Kush Kart.’
• “Charges involving his law firm employers”
  • ‘Respondent never disclosed to either Firm A, Firm B, nor Firm C that he was acting as the Chief Operating Officer of Kush Kart during the time of his employment with Firms A, B, and C. Respondent further failed to disclose to Firm C that he had received salary from Kush Kart during the period of his employment with Firm C. Respondent’s failure to disclose to Firms A, B, and C that he was simultaneously employed by Kush Kart while employed with each Firm was dishonest, because Respondent knew that Firms A, B, and C required him to devote his full time to each Firm’s practice, and further knew that the Firms were paying him to devote his full time and attention to each Firm’s practice.’

David Kluft asks: “Do I have to tell my client who my other clients are if there is no conflict?” —

• “An IL company found out that that a departing employee, who was in the process of starting a competing entity, had been in touch with the company’s outside counsel law firm. The company asked the law firm what was up, and the firm stated that it did not represent the departing employee in any matter adverse to the firm, but ‘if you are also asking the broader question of whether we represent [her] on other matters, I cannot answer that.'”
• “The company later sued the firm on theories of fraudulent misrepresentation (falsely claiming there was no adversity) and fraudulent concealment (not disclosing whether they represented her at all).”
• “The 7th Cir. Affirmed dismissal of the fraudulent concealment allegation, because there was no duty to disclose the identity of one client to another absent a conflict. The Court also affirmed summary judgment against the fraudulent misrepresentation allegation, because the firm had not been paid any attorneys’ fees after the alleged misrepresentation so there was no harm.”
• Decision: here.

“Ayotte’s choice of Casella lawyer for Supreme Court raises alarm among environmental advocates: ‘Simply rewarding a political loyalist’” —

• “[New Hampshire] Gov. Kelly Ayotte chose Bryan Gould, an attorney and lobbyist for Casella Waste Systems, as her nominee for the New Hampshire Supreme Court last week, drawing concern across party lines about his selection could mean for the future of the state’s environmental protections.”
• “Gould is currently the lead attorney representing Casella in its lawsuit against the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, after regulators denied a key permit for the company’s plan to build a landfill in the North Country.”
• “State Rep. Kelley Potenza, R-Rochester, said that while she highly respects Ayotte for bringing waste issues to the forefront, Gould’s confirmation to the state’s highest court could be a ‘huge problem.'”
• “‘His relationship is incestuous with industry, as well as has an active lawsuit against the state right now,’ she said. ‘What is she thinking? She literally put forward one of the worst offenders who has trampled on the rights of citizens in the highest position of judicial power in New Hampshire.'”
• “Gould, a director at the Concord law firm Cleveland Waters and Bass, also served as legal counsel for Ayotte’s gubernatorial campaign. In May, Ayotte appointed him to a six-member judicial selection commission.”
• “Gould has also represented the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.”
• “In 2023, emails revealed that the state’s environmental agency consulted Gould during the legislative session on edits to a bill. In its original form, the legislation would have made it difficult for Casella to site a landfill in Dalton.”
  “John Corbett, a spokesperson for Ayotte, said Gould’s conflicts of interest would not affect the cases he hears should he be confirmed to the state Supreme Court.”
• “‘While Gov. Ayotte strongly opposes a landfill at Forest Lake, she knows Bryan Gould will continue to operate with the strongest professional ethics and recuse himself from cases involving Casella and the proposed project in Dalton,’ he said in a statement. ‘The governor is confident Gould will uphold our Constitution and lead with fairness and sound judgment as he hears cases that come before the Court.'”
• “Gould has worked as a lobbyist for Casella since 2020. This year, he has already received $99,050 in lobbying fees from the company, with $65,857 still outstanding, according to his financial filings with the Secretary of State. In 2024, he was paid $72,804 for his lobbying work.”
• “‘The fact that he has been involved and continues to be involved in these legal actions between his out-of-state client and the state of New Hampshire certainly makes it a lot more disconcerting,’ [State Rep.] Germana said.”
• “He also questioned Ayotte’s decision to nominate someone at 66, calling it ‘odd’ for a new justice. In New Hampshire, the mandatory retirement age for judges is 70.”
• “‘It’s really difficult to believe that the motivation behind this is anything other than simply rewarding a political loyalist,’ Germana said. ‘So, the fact that he has been involved, and continues to be involved in these legal actions between his out-of-state client and the state of New Hampshire, certainly makes it a lot more disconcerting.'”

“Big Law Firms Cool to Idea of Bringing on Burford’s Billions” —

• “Some Big Law leaders are skeptical of Burford Capital’s plan for minority investments in firms, in part because they don’t see a need for the cash. The publicly traded litigation finance pioneer last month floated the idea of buying a stake to several US law firms. Some legal leaders worry taking on these kinds of arrangements could breach state rules against non-lawyer ownership of firms. Others hesitate to relinquish any control, even for investments in back-office services only. And some struggle to know what they’d do with new money from the outside.”
• “‘Our service offerings are designed to complement our lawyers in delivering the best service to our clients,’ Miguel Zaldivar, chief executive officer of Hogan Lovells, said in an interview. ‘Profitability matters, but we also want to protect our unique culture. Even in the provision of ancillary services, I consider it a challenge.'”
• “The skepticism shows why Burford leaders have mounted something of a public relations campaign to persuade law firms of their deep experience investing in professional services. The investor, which has $3 billion in market capitalization, has been scouring for large law firms willing to take the jump as it engages in talks with several firms it hasn’t named.”
• “Burford since its founding in 2009 has pumped $11 billion into single lawsuits or portfolios of cases with the hope of reaping a share of awards—an investment practice known as litigation finance. The company now also wants to pour capital into law firms through managed services organizations, or MSOs, a structure used by private equity firms to invest in accountancies and healthcare providers.”
• “The model creates a separate business that houses service functions of a law firm, such as billing and human resources. The law firm then contracts with the MSO for those services, freeing up resources for managing partners to focus on their core business of serving clients.”
• “One person with knowledge of MSOs, who requested anonymity to discuss details of the industry, roughly estimated that more than $100 million has been invested into legal MSOs in the last 10 to 15 years. Some of the money is from traditional private equity firms, while some has come from litigation finance platforms, the person said.”
  “That’s not much money in the world of Big Law. To put that in perspective, the 58 largest law firms each cleared more than $1 billion in revenue in fiscal 2024, according to the American Lawyer.”
  ‘Hypothetical’ Talk”
• “Burford’s Lenkner said the MSO model doesn’t breach the US fee-splitting provision. Burford would be a ‘passive’ investor in the services organization, he said, and law firms would be well-placed to negotiate their continued control over their operations into contracts tied to any deals.”

“Formal Opinion 2025-3: Permissibility of Financial Disincentives Associated With a Lawyer’s Departure From a Law Firm” —

• “TOPIC: Law firm lawyer retention policies, financial disincentives, conditional loan forgiveness, withholding of deferred payments that have the effect, either expressly or in practice, of discouraging or deterring competition with the firm.”
• “QUESTION:  May a law firm impose financial terms, including but not limited to payments in the form of forgivable loans, bonuses, deferred compensation, withdrawal payments, deductions from capital that are expressly forfeitable or forfeitable at the discretion of the firm, that have the effect, either by their express terms or in practice, of discouraging or deterring competition with the firm?”
•  “DIGEST: The implementation by law firms of partnership or employment financial terms, including but not limited to payments in the form of forgivable loans, bonuses, deferred compensation, withdrawal payments, deductions from capital or otherwise that are automatically forfeitable or forfeitable at the discretion of the firm, that have the effect, either by their express terms or in practice, of discouraging or deterring competition with the law firm by lawyers who leave the law firm, is impermissible under Rule 5.6(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.”

“Large law firms could face prosecution for overbilling” —

• “Large law firms that overbill their clients or make false environmental and diversity claims could be prosecuted under new [UK] legislation coming into force next Monday.”
• “Simon Airey, partner at McDermott Will & Schulte, described the new ‘failure to prevent fraud’ offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) as a ‘complete and utter gift’ to the Serious Fraud Office, and said there was no reason why law firms would not be prosecuted.”
• “The offence, which comes into force on 1 September, makes large organisations criminally liable if an ‘associated person’ commits fraud intended to benefit the organisation, and the organisation lacked ‘reasonable’ fraud prevention procedures.”
• “An ‘associated person’ would include associates and trainees, agents of the firm and subsidiaries.”
• “Large organisations are those which meet two out of three criteria: more than 250 employees, turnover exceeding £36m and a balance sheet total exceeding £18m.”
• “Mr Airey said the new offence also applied to large foreign law firms, such as his own, with offices in London which by themselves would not qualify – McDermott is headquartered in the US.”
• “Thomas Jenkins, of counsel at City firm RPC, said a particular risk area was billing and time recording, and law firms ‘should be alive to risks arising from fee-earners over-recording time’.”
• “For example, ‘if a fee-earner deliberately inflates or rounds up time entries, this conduct could trigger liability for the firm, even if the matter partner is entirely unaware of it’.”
• “It could also include ‘fraud by silence’, for example deliberately not notifying a client about a data breach in order to stay instructed.”
• “To protect themselves, law firms must ‘engage in proper risk assessments’, which ‘honestly and frankly’ assess the risk of acting, particularly in high-risk areas like conveyancing. They must ‘design and tailor’ policies to meet those risks.”
• “Mr Jenkins said assessments should ‘identify specific vulnerabilities, such as weaknesses in billing processes or gaps in oversight’, and based on the findings, firms might need to strengthen internal controls.”
• “Both solicitors pointed out that smaller law firms could be prosecuted under ECCTA through what Mr Airey called the ‘senior manager regime’, a part of the Act which came into force at the end of 2023.”
• “Under this regime criminal liability extends beyond board members to anyone who meets the statutory test of being a ‘senior manager’. Mr Airey said that in a law firm this includes heads of department and heads of functions like HR or finance.”
• “A ‘tiny law firm’ in the UK could be ‘infected’ by the behaviour of one of its senior managers, just as a senior manager of a US law firm in the UK could ‘infect’ the whole firm.”
• “Mr Airey described ECCTA as ‘the biggest change ever in corporate criminal liability’, giving the authorities ‘the ability to do things’ that had previously been denied to them.”

“DOJ Drops Another Fraud Case Against a Client of Bondi’s Brother” —

• “The Justice Department dismissed a criminal wire fraud indictment of two St. Louis real estate developers, the second reversal this month benefiting a white-collar client of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s brother.”
• “Brad Bondi, a Paul Hastings partner who represented one of the construction company owners accused last September of 11 counts of wire fraud to earn millions in unlawful tax incentives, successfully convinced DOJ to seek a court dismissal Wednesday. The judge approved it.”
• “It marked an about face from a motion he signed Aug. 4 defending the merits of the prosecution. Interim US Attorney Thomas Albus’s latest filing—which didn’t include the signature of the case’s sole line prosecutor—focused on a June letter from DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer invalidating aspects of race and sex-based business enterprise programs.”
• “Bondi’s firm had defended co-defendant Sid Chakraverty from the get go but he entered his first court appearance July 15. In a post on LinkedIn, Bondi congratulated the defendants, writing that the government agreed with his contention ‘that the St. Louis program (under which our clients were being prosecuted) was unconstitutional.'”
• “Bondi and his firm didn’t immediately respond to questions about whether he communicated with the attorney general or other members of her leadership team about this case.”
• “‘This decision was made through proper channels, and the Attorney General had no role in it,’ said DOJ spokesman Gates McGavick in a statement.”
• “The dismissal comes less than three weeks after another Bondi client, Carolina Amesty, secured an identical outcome. Amesty, a Republican state legislator in Florida, had been charged in January—three days before Trump took office—with stealing government property related to Covid-19 relief fraud.”

I’m incredibly pleased to invite our law firm risk readers to participate in the 2025 Risk Staffing Compensation Survey!

Last year’s exercise, our third go, was a great success. We saw participation from 138 individuals, who contributed data on 730 individual risk staff and management positions. (Given the large number of report requests over the past year from folks who missed or skipped the 2024 exercise, I think we still have room to grow in 2025 numbers!)

As I noted in my update last week, the 2025 exercise incorporates notes and suggestions from many of you. We’ve edited out a question or two, and added a few.

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

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

SURVEY DETAILS:

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

The survey will be open through September 30, and can be accessed here: 2025 Risk Staffing Compensation Survey.

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

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

Let’s see what we learn this round!