Bressler Risk Blog

“US judge will not toss Charlie Javice conviction for defrauding JPMorgan based on clerks’ alleged conflicts” —

• “A federal judge on Tuesday rejected Charlie Javice’s bid to throw out her conviction for defrauding JPMorgan Chase into buying her education startup Frank for $175 million, after she said two law clerks had conflicts of interest by accepting jobs at the bank’s outside law firm.”
• “U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan said his clerks’ past and future employment at Davis Polk & Wardwell, including as summer associates prior to their clerkships, ‘did not create an appearance of partiality’ requiring a new trial for Javice and co-defendant Olivier Amar,”
• “Frank’s former chief growth officer. Hellerstein, 92, also said there was no proof he relied too heavily on his clerks, including when the defendants accused a clerk of ‘participating in real time’ in decisions about important testimony, and no reasonable person who watched the entire case would question his impartiality. “‘The evidence in this case was strong, and there is no concern here that an innocent person may have been convicted,’ he added.”
• “Davis Polk has more than 1,000 lawyers according to its website, and neither the law firm nor JPMorgan was a defendant in the criminal case. Javice, 34, founded Frank in 2017 and won praise for simplifying college financial aid for students and parents. Prosecutors said she deceived JPMorgan by claiming Frank had far more customers than it actually had.”
• “JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has called the 2021 purchase a ‘huge mistake.’ Hellerstein sentenced Javice to 85 months in prison and Amar to 68 months in prison. Both were convicted last March of ?bank fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud. Javice has appealed her conviction. Amar is scheduled to surrender on May 5, Hellerstein said.”

“McGuireWoods Beats Sun Pharma’s DQ Bid In NJ Suit” —

• “A New Jersey federal court has denied Sun Pharmaceutical’s bid to disqualify McGuireWoods LLP from representing pharmaceutical company Biofrontera in litigation over the alleged breach of a settlement agreement, ruling the firm’s continued representation won’t harm Sun Pharmaceutical and will avoid significant harm to Biofrontera.”
• “U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day held in a redacted opinion that while McGuireWoods attorney Kevin Madagan’s previous work for Sun Pharmaceutical as a regulatory lawyer at another firm disqualifies him from the Biofrontera case, and imputes that conflict to McGuireWoods, disqualifying McGuireWoods at this state in the case would be ‘immense and unfair.'”
• “‘In the court’s judgment, this is the rare case in which the balance of equities tips decisively against disqualification and in favor of allowing Biofrontera to maintain its counsel of choice,’ the judge said in the opinion dated Feb. 25 and filed Friday.”
• “Judge Day found disqualification was not warranted for several reasons: McGuireWoods didn’t violate New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct when it screened Madagan from the case at the time he joined the firm; Sun Pharmaceutical did not move for disqualification for more than a year after the conflict arose; Sun Pharmaceutical significantly overstated the prejudice it would face; disqualifying McGuire Woods would upend the years it spent developing its familiarity with the case; and the disqualification would result in months, if not years, in delays.”
• “The judge also cited the unique and unprecedented circumstances of the case and the facts that led to the conflict as reasons for not disqualifying McGuireWoods.”
• “According to the opinion, Sun Pharmaceutical argued McGuireWoods should be disqualified because Madagan had provided regular legal advice to Sun Pharmaceutical on multiple issues at the core of Biofrontera’s counterclaims while he was at Reed Smith LLP, and that New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conflict 1.10 imputes that conflict to McGuireWoods.”
• “The judge noted, however, the question is one of first impression and one that the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics may wish to clarify ‘how to address imputation and screening of conflicts arising from a corporate, regulatory, or transactional lawyer’s legal advice to a former client well before litigation unfolds.'”
• “According to the opinion, imputation and screening issues most often arise when an attorney advises a client in connection with litigation and then switches to a firm representing the adversary in litigation. Judge Day said although he sides with Sun Pharmaceutical’s reading of the rules of professional conduct at issue, Biofrontera’s reading of the rule is ‘neither implausible nor unreasonable.'”
• “‘Although the court has concluded above that the best reading of the rule applies to this situation, it agrees with Biofrontera that, in the balance of things, it would be unfair to penalize it and its chosen counsel on a close question of first impression,’ Judge Day said.”
• Decision: here.

“Hearing held in Simpson data center lawsuit” —

• “While preliminary development plans for a proposed data center have gotten approval, legal challenges related to the project have come before a judge for the first time. A status conference took place Monday in Simpson Circuit Court regarding a lawsuit brought by TenKey LandCo I LLC, the company that owns the land in Franklin where the proposed data center would be built.”
• “TenKey’s project visualizes three large facilities built on about 200 acres on Steele Road, dedicated to cloud-based data storage and infrastructure to cool the computers necessary for such an operation. The Franklin Planning and Zoning Commission recently approved a preliminary development plan, but the lawsuit concerns an ordinance passed late last year by Simpson County Fiscal Court that would require any data center operation within the county to obtain a conditional use permit.”
• “TenKey has sued the fiscal court, essentially arguing that the county government has overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate a project that would be located within Franklin’s city limits and be subject to the city’s planning and zoning regulations. Attorney Kathryn Eckert is part of a group of TenKey representatives who have requested that Simpson Circuit Judge Mark Thurmond issue a judgment invalidating the fiscal court’s ordinance.”
• Eckert also filed a motion to disqualify Smith and attorney Josie Keusch, both from the Bowling Green law firm English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, from representing the fiscal court in the lawsuit. According to court filings, TenKey retained a different ELPO attorney, Michael Vitale, in November, to write a cease-and-desist letter to a Franklin resident who posted defamatory statements online concerning TenKey and data center project manager Adam DeSimone.”
• “The resident removed those statements. With ELPO attorneys retained now to represent the fiscal court, Eckert argued that represents a conflict of interest, with TenKey representatives having already shared confidential information about the project with Vitale to help him draft the cease-and-desist letter.”
• “Smith countered that TenKey retained ELPO last year just for the letter, and had performed no other services for the company and had no communication with them since November. Smith also argued that the cease-and-desist letter and the current lawsuit involving the legality of the fiscal court’s ordinance are ‘substantially different’ issues and ELPO had received no confidential information from TenKey.”

“Texas Firm Sues Former Associate For Running Her Own Firm” —

• “Texas law firm Hoover Slovacek LLP has sued a former associate in state court, accusing her of running her own law firm and representing clients adverse to her employer while still working there full-time.”
• “Hoover Slovacek accused Nancy Truong of opening and operating Integrity Law Group PLLC without disclosing that to firm management, it said in its complaint, filed Monday. It also accuses her of representing parties adverse to the firm, including obtaining a judgment against one of its clients.”
• “On March 6, 2025, Hoover Slovacek learned that Truong obtained a judgment against one of its clients using an email address associated with Integrity Law Group, the petition states. She also allegedly coerced a legal assistant to file legal documents on behalf of her own firm while being employed by Hoover Slovacek.”
• “Hoover Slovacek is suing Truong for breach of contract, stating she broke her employment agreement by not complying with its policies, and that her actions hurt the firm, including through its payment of compensation and benefits.”
• “The firm also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty, as Truong owed it fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, including the duty to disclose conflicts and to refrain from competing and acting adversely to the firm’s interests while employed there.”

David Kluft asks: “If the government obtains information in discovery that is subject to a protective order, is it ‘confidential government information’ under Rule 1.11?” —

• “A law firm represented Chicago and other cities in opioid-related public nuisance lawsuits against a pharmaceutical distributor defendant. The firm obtained certain discovery from the defendant that was subject to a protective order in those cases. Los Angeles then hired the same firm to bring a similar suit against the same defendant.”
• “The defendant moved to disqualify the firm because of its access to information in the earlier cases, California Rule 1.11(c) prohibits a lawyer who represents a government entity from using ‘confidential government information’ learned from that representation on behalf of another client in a later representation.”
• “The distributor argued that since the discovery in those earlier matters was subject to a protective order, it was not ‘publicly available’ and therefore qualified as ‘confidential government info.'”
• “The CA Court of Appeals disagreed: ‘Confidential Government Information’ is information the government can obtain that a regular civil litigant could not – it does not include information subject to a routine protective order in a case that happens to involve the government.”

“Atty Seeks To Boot Ogletree From Microsoft Bias Suit” —

• “An attorney who claimed Microsoft fired her out of pregnancy discrimination sought to disqualify Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC from representing the tech giant, telling a Washington federal judge the move is necessary because the firm also backs a client she’s fighting in another case.”
• “Amber Montgomery filed a motion Monday asking the court to disqualify Ogletree from representing Microsoft Corp. in her Title VII pregnancy and disability discrimination suit, arguing it would be unfair for the firm to continue as counsel because Ogletree also represents a company that one of Montgomery’s clients is actively suing.”
• “‘This motion is not directed at any individual attorney. It addresses a structural conflict arising from the firm’s concurrent representation of adverse clients — a conflict the firm created, failed to disclose, and refused to cure,’ Montgomery said. ‘Disqualification is necessary to preserve the integrity of these proceedings and to ensure public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.'”
• “In her Monday filing, Montgomery said that Ogletree is also representing security company ADT LLC against one of Montgomery’s clients, Trinity Moore, who accused the company of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in a federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Georgia. Montgomery said Ogletree shareholder Patrick F. Clark, who previously represented Microsoft but withdrew from the case in February, had been working on the case while supervising an associate who represented ADT in Moore’s suit.”
• “Montgomery claimed her client may have faced negative repercussions from Ogletree’s involvement in both cases. The day after Montgomery said she filed a response cooperating with Microsoft’s bid to transfer her case from Georgia federal court to Washington federal court, she said ADT terminated Moore in a phone call.”
• “During the call, Montgomery claimed Moore’s supervisor laughed and said that they were just following orders. This appearance of impropriety is enough to justify Ogletree’s disqualification, Montgomery argued. Montgomery said the firm decided to ‘double down’ after she raised concerns about the conflict in early March and added a third attorney to represent Microsoft in the case.”
• “‘Ogletree’s belated attempt to cure this conflict by withdrawing Mr. Clark and substituting attorneys from its Seattle office on February 18, 2026 is precisely the type of strategic maneuvering prohibited by the Hot Potato Doctrine,’ Montgomery said, a legal principle that prevents lawyers from unreasonably dropping a client, sometimes to take on a client with adverse interests.”
• “She argued that Ogletree’s presence as an adversary in both cases gives the firm access to her litigation strategies from the two different disputes, and added that the firm’s efforts to attack her credibility in her case against Microsoft would undermine her effectiveness as an attorney for Moore.”

“Pam Bondi’s close ties to lawyer brother Brad Bondi raise questions” —

• “Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing fresh scrutiny over whether she had any influence on her brother Brad Bondi’s career.
• “Just like AG Bondi, Brad is a lawyer, working as a partner at Paul Hastings. However, a few of Brad’s legal wins have come under the microscope, considering that a number of the cases he represented have been dismissed altogether by the Department of Justice ever since Pam assumed office.”
• “According to Nicki Swift, one such instance is the high-profile case of Carolina Amesty, who served as a Republican lawmaker for Florida from late 2022 to late 2024. Amnesty was reportedly accused of stealing money meant for COVID relief. She was facing 20 years in prison if she were found guilty. “
• “But, in August 2025, Amesty’s case was dismissed. According to the media outlet, which cited the Tampa Bay Times, Brad had informed the court that it had all come down to ‘significant exculpatory material.’ However, the material was not made public, and per Central Florida Public Media, the presiding judge wrote in the dismissal order: ‘Without providing any explanation or argument in support of its request, the United States asks the Court to dismiss the criminal complaint.'”
• “More than one news outlet noted Brad’s connection to AG Bondi when covering the news. ABC News also asked the DOJ about the controversial dismissal, to which they replied, ‘This decision was made through proper channels and the Attorney General had no role in it.'”
• “Carolina Amesty is not the only client represented by Brad Bondi whose charges have been dropped by the DOJ. Now, many lawmakers are calling for an investigation into AG Pam Bondi‘s possible involvement in these developments. Among them is Senator Adam Schiff, who had a tense exchange with the Attorney General during an oversight hearing in October 2025. According to CNBC-TV18, in response to a question Schiff asked Bondi, she pointedly replied, ‘Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him?'”
• “In the case of Brad Bondi, Schiff wrote a letter with Rep. Dave Min, putting forth his concerns that some of Brad’s wins may be connected to him being AG Bondi’s brother. According to ABC News, the California Democrats wrote, ‘We are concerned that DOJ officials, including the Attorney General, may have failed to ensure the independence of internal accountability mechanisms.’ Schiff and Minn specifically asked for an investigation into ‘Whether Attorney General Pamela Bondi properly recused herself from, or otherwise improperly influenced, several cases involving defendants represented by her brother.'”
• “The DOJ responded in a similar way to how it addressed the Carolina Amesty case, saying that Pam Bondi had no involvement in the matter. Speaking to ABC News, they stated, ‘These decisions were made through the proper channels, and the Attorney General had no role in them.'”

“Data Center Rush Poses Conflicts for Law Firms With Energy Ties” —

• “The data center boom is a conflict minefield for law firms that count major utilities among their top clients. Three of the largest firms in Texas—Vinson & Elkins, Baker Botts, and Jackson Walker—are go-to advisers for large regulated utilities Oncor Electric Delivery Co., CenterPoint Energy, and Texas-New Mexico Power. They are now among a slew of firms representing AI data center developers and hyperscalers building multibillion-dollar facilities that require massive amounts of electricity from the state’s power grid.”
• “‘There’s a whole host of conflicts that can result,’ said John Browning, a former appeals court judge in Dallas. ‘Law firms in Texas want to cash-in on the business opportunities, but at the same time they also have to navigate that very difficult tightrope of keeping their existing utility clients happy.'”
• “The utilities are experiencing  unprecedented demand for infrastructure development to meet increasing calls from industry, including data centers. That creates revenue and opportunity, but it’s also fueling concerns over the strained power grid and public policies regulating large loads of connection. Utilities need to manage how to serve the state’s growing population and industries, while tech giants are asking to plug-in now and get power fast.”
• “Vinson & Elkins and Baker Botts declined to comment, while Jackson Walker did not respond to comment requests. The firms appear for now to be navigating potential conflicts by steering data center projects largely outside of their utility clients’ service areas, according to available public information.”
• “V&E is a longtime legal adviser for Dallas-based Oncor, the state’s largest utility delivering power to more than 13 million customers. The firm also represents Fermi Inc., an AI-focused real estate company co-founded by former energy secretary Rick Perry. The company, which raised nearly $683 million when lawyers from Vinson & Elkins helped it go public last year, is building an 11-gigawatt data center in the Texas Panhandle.”
• “Baker Botts has represented Houston-area CenterPoint and its predecessors for more than a century, according to the firm, and in February steered a $2.6 billion debt securities deal. The firm’s lawyers are advising on data center projects throughout the state, including helping LandBridge Co. on a definitive agreement for a development on 2,000 acres in West Texas.”
• “Jackson Walker has long advised TNMP in a wide range of regulatory matters, including rate change requests and related litigation. The firm last year helped CloudBurst Data Centers Inc. make a ‘behind the meter’ deal to receive natural gas directly from pipeline operator Energy Transfers to power its data center campus in San Marcos, near Austin.”
• “Lawyers at other firms said they are using conflict waivers to get ahead of ethics issues and opting out of certain matters when that pits clients on opposing sides. But firms could be forced to pick sides as the state imposes new regulations on data centers’ power use.”
• “‘There’s potentially conflicting viewpoints on where the data center should be located, how it will be interconnected to the grid, and who should pay for it,’ said Gina Warren, a University of Houston Law Center professor who previously represented utility companies as a lawyer at Perkins Coie. ‘It definitely creates a conflict with meeting energy demands, current demands and future demands, and it’s questionable whether interests of the utility companies will align with interests of the AI data centers.'”
• “Two large law firms with deep Texas roots—Haynes Boone and Norton Rose Fulbright—now require clients to sign advanced conflict waivers to head off potential ethics issues in data center work.”
• “Dallas-founded Haynes Boone has put up ‘guardrails’ and ‘ethical walls,’ separating certain practices to avoid potential conflicts, according to Jeff Moerdler, chair of the firm’s data center and digital infrastructure group. The firm also advised on Fermi’s IPO last year.”
• “‘You can’t be on both sides of the same matter, even with different lawyers,’ said Moerdler, a New York lawyer who joined Haynes Boone in January. ‘There are some firms that do that. My position, and I believe Haynes Boone’s position, is we don’t do that.'”
• “Even if firms don’t cross ethical lines, they may risk alienating certain clients by taking on others with competing interests, according to Browning, the former judge.”
• “‘For a lack of a better way of putting it, you don’t want to piss off your existing clients,’ he said. ‘Client loyalty is a big consideration. Not just actual loyalty, but also the perception of loyalty.'”

“O’Toole Scrivo Fights DQ Bid Over Port Authority Leader Ties” —

• “McCarter & English LLP this week blasted a counsel disqualification motion from a former attorney suing for alleged discrimination as a ‘blatant and meritless’ tactical move to interfere with its representation by the firm O’Toole Scrivo LLC over that firm’s connection to the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.”
• “Pro se plaintiff William Brown Jr., a former McCarter & English attorney suing the firm for alleged anti-veteran discrimination, moved to disqualify O’Toole Scrivo in early March.”
• “Brown had named O’Toole Scrivo managing partner Kevin O’Toole as a defendant in an amended complaint filed in February and argued that O’Toole’s firm could not ethically go on to represent a fellow defendant in the suit.”
• “But O’Toole Scrivo told the Essex County Superior Court in a brief filed Tuesday that Brown ‘presents the court with nothing other than unfounded speculation that could never result in a conflict sufficient to deprive McCarter of its chosen counsel.'”
• “Brown’s claim against O’Toole is that, using his influence as Port Authority chairman, he retaliated against Brown for suing McCarter & English by canceling a Navy SEAL charity event Brown runs at the World Trade Center, costing Brown tens of thousands of dollars a year in income.”
• “Brown argued that O’Toole Scrivo must be removed from the litigation because McCarter & English’s strongest defense would be to shift the blame for canceling the charity event onto O’Toole personally, leaving the firm and its counsel with adverse interests.”
• “McCarter & English, however, told the court Brown is speculating about McCarter & English’s future legal strategy. The firm also said the supposed conflict is irrelevant because of a sworn statement in discovery from the CEO of the Navy SEAL Foundation, an organization involved in the charity, stating that the event’s cancellation had nothing to do with O’Toole.”
• “‘McCarter’s strategy and choice of counsel are for McCarter to determine,’ the firm wrote in Tuesday’s filing.”
• “Brown responded to McCarter & English’s opposition Wednesday, denying that his disqualification motion was speculative or based on future events.”
• “Brown alleged that Open Public Records Act documents show O’Toole again misused his influence as Port Authority chairman by directing the police department of his town to block a process server from serving him with Brown’s amended complaint. The episode highlights the tension between McCarter & English and O’Toole in terms of how to defend against the retaliatory conduct allegations in his suit, according to Brown.”

“Ethics Commission: Former Holyoke City Councilor allegedly violated conflict of interest law” —

• “The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission says it’s found ‘reasonable cause’ while probing potential conflict of interest violations involving a former Holyoke city councilor.”
• “According to the commission, David Bartley allegedly violated the state’s Conflict of Interest law on multiple occasions while serving the city.”
• “The four listed incidents occurred between 2023 and 2025, and largely involved Bartley acting as an attorney, often representing property owners in cases involving the city.”
• “The commission says the state’s Conflict of Interest law ‘prohibits municipal employees from acting as agent or attorney for anyone other than the municipality, or doing paid work for anyone other than the municipality, in connection with matters in which the municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.'”
• “The commission also says Bartley allegedly failed to complete the state conflict of interest law online training program for most of his time as a councilor. “

“Paul Weiss Deal With Trump Haunts Industry One Year Later” —

• “A year after Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp shuttled to the White House to strike a deal with President Donald Trump, the fallout is still shaking the law firm, the legal profession, and the president’s agenda in court.”
• “The agreement weakened Paul Weiss’ reputation in the market in the year since. The legal profession is struggling to backfill pro bono work that the largest law firms used to take on. And the Trump administration losses against four law firms that challenged the orders have proven to be a bellwether of how judges can curtail the president’s retribution streak.”
• “‘Even without further executive orders, if what already occurred is enough to cause the biggest firms to be afraid to do what they used to do, that is not a good thing for our country,’ said Shira Scheindlin, a former Manhattan federal judge who’s now at Boies Schiller. Scheindlin is part of a group advocating that lawyers sign an ethics pledge preventing them from entering into deals with the administration.”
• “Paul Weiss’ reputation arguably has been the hardest hit of any of the nine law firms that struck accords with the administration, partly because of the notoriety of being the first to settle.”
• “‘Paul Weiss had a reputation as a firm that stood up for civil liberties and took on tough cases and had principles, and that reputation is really tarnished,’ said Elliot Peters, a partner at San Francisco-based Keker Van Nest & Peters. ‘A lot of good lawyers left some of those firms, they certainly left Paul Weiss. And I hope they feel shame for not standing up for the most basic tenets of our profession.'”
• “Karp stepped down from his chair role in February after details emerged about his relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.”
• “The fallout from the Paul Weiss deal and those agreements that followed is not over. One risk is whether the firms will take a hit in law school recruiting. The Association of American Law Schools this month is starting a six-week ‘teach-in’ to discuss the ethics of the law firm deals. The effort will reach students at schools including Georgetown, Harvard, and Indiana—pipelines for Big Law recruiting.”
• “The firms are likely to fill their classes, McGowan said. Students have debt, and the firms pay good wages. ‘The fact they can still hire people doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake,’ he said. “

Jamie Giani notes: “UK Judge Rules on Smart Glasses in Court Proceedings” —

• “A judge in the UK issued an opinion finding that a witness had been fed answers via smart glasses while on cross-examination. And this is almost certainly not the first time smart glasses have affected a court proceeding. Smart glasses and other smart devices are coming to a courtroom near you – it’s not a matter of IF but when.”
• “Jurors could wear smart devices recording court proceedings to view later OR be looking up external information on witnesses or the facts of the case.”
• “Reporters or interested observers could record and post about hearings or trials. Attorneys could receive real-time coaching and information from associates not present in the courtroom.”
• “How will courts protect the integrity (and confidentiality in some cases) of the judicial process given how seamlessly these devices blend into everyday life? Judges and court staff need training on this, and a plan of action for how to address issues when they arise.”
• “Link to UK opinion (relevant portion starts at paragraph 110)”

“Seven Essential Security Strategies For Law Firms And Legal Departments” —

• “With cyberattacks and data breaches dominating the headlines, legal professionals, whether in law firms or corporate legal departments, now serve as protectors of trust, privacy, and some of the world’s most sensitive information. Today, security is no longer a background IT task; it is a leadership imperative in legal service delivery, risk mitigation, and brand management. Legal work is digital and distributed, and expectations extend far beyond merely checking off compliance boxes. “
• “Clients, corporate leadership, and regulators are watching. They demand transparency and assurance that your law firm or legal department is proactive about securing all privileged data, monitoring the vendor ecosystem, and adapting to an evolving threat landscape. This article outlines the seven most critical security strategies to safeguard information and proactively build client and stakeholder confidence. “
• “Turn Compliance into a Competitive Advantage. Regulations, including HIPAA, GDPR, CCPA, and more, dictate how legal organizations handle information. But the best law firms and legal departments go beyond the minimum, positioning compliance as a value proposition and a reason for clients or the C-suite to trust them. “
• “Law Firms: Highlight a culture of compliance in RFPs, outside counsel guidelines, and pitches. Clients increasingly differentiate between firms based on their ability to manage risk and share audit documentation. “
• “Treat All Client, Company, and Case Data as Highly Sensitive. Legal risk does not respect any boundaries between official records and working documents. IP filings, deal memos, video depositions, transcripts, background emails, and anything else associated with legal matters may contain highly confidential or regulated material. “
• “Law Firms:”The days of treating only internal firm files, such as retainer agreements or billing records, as the most important or confidential are over. Anything related to a client must be considered mission-critical security data. “
• “Proactively Vet and Monitor Every Third-Party Vendor.“Breaches rarely start at home. More than half originate in the extensive web of litigation support providers, software vendors, contract staffing agencies, and, sometimes, expert witnesses. Both in-house and law firm legal teams must scrutinize every vendor as a source of risk. “
• “Action Steps: Adopt a standardized risk-vetting tool (such as Shared Assessments’ SIG questionnaire) to screen all vendors. Require multitiered evidence: Ask for independent audits (SOC 2, ISO 27001), vendor supply chain risk questionnaires, and regular IT/infosec reviews.”Insist on regulatory attestation: Obtain written, renewed sign-offs from both vendors and their critical subcontractors confirming compliance with every relevant statute (HIPAA, GDPR, CCPA, etc.).  Consider legal industry specialists: Firms like Prevalent focus on legal technology supply chains and can streamline complex vendor reviews.”

“California lawyers must soon take a yearly civility oath, prompting free speech concerns” —

• “Starting next month, each of California’s 286,000 attorneys will have to swear each year to ‘strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity’ or risk losing their license to practice law. Unless, that is, the oath is found to unduly restrict freedom of speech, an argument that may find some support in the state Supreme Court, which would have the last word.”
• “Several other states require newly licensed attorneys to swear that they will act with civility, but California is apparently the first to require an annual civility oath for all of its lawyers. Last year, the state also added civility instruction to the educational and ethics courses that practicing lawyers are required to take every three years.”
• “The state Supreme Court said in September that it would allow the State Bar, whose actions the court supervises, to add a civility pledge to the oath taken by all licensed attorneys each year. But the court refused to add civility requirements to the bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, violations of which can be punished by fines, suspension and even disbarment.”
• “The justices said the bar’s governing board had not provided a clear and specific definition of ‘incivility,’ an indication that attempts to discipline lawyers for violating their pledge might interfere with their freedom of speech in communicating with clients or judges. Instead, the justices suggested that the board should propose a state law that could impose penalties, such as reductions in attorneys’ fees, for lawyers who act abusively.”
• “State courts have already ordered such penalties on their own. In a 2023 ruling, for example, the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld a judge’s decision to reduce attorneys’ fees for the winning side in a lawsuit from $1.14 million to $686,000 because of what the court described as the winning lawyer’s ‘belittling and antagonistic’ attitude — at one point, he said the other side’s attorney had made ‘a total fool’ of the trial judge — and found that the penalty was justified ‘to demonstrate the importance of civility in litigation.'”
• “Kelly, the former State Bar president, said when he announced his proposal in 2013 that lawyers in California, more often in the past, were shouting and swearing at one another, making personal attacks in court filings, rejecting the other side’s routine requests to extend deadlines, and even trying to intimidate judges.”
• “Once a lawyer takes a civility pledge, Kelly said, actions that are found to violate that pledge shouldn’t be grounds for punishment — unlike lying or stealing, which can get a lawyer disbarred — but the oath should serve as a reminder that there’s more to practicing law than winning cases and billing clients.”
• “But some specialists in legal ethics expressed doubts at the time that the additional pledge would affect courtroom behavior — the late Stanford Law professor Deborah Rhode said some lawyers simply conclude that a take-no-prisoners attitude would help their client.”
• “Long Beach attorney Louis Anthes also said he took the new oath despite what he saw as a conflict with the First Amendment. ‘Attorneys have the right to speech, and ‘civility’ is a vague term that does not clarify professional standards,’ Anthes told the State Bar board.”

“DLA Piper to Ax Verein Structure in Play to Boost Profits” —

• “DLA plans to dissolve its verein, a structure used by some law firms to connect loose networks of affiliates with separate profits pools operating under the same brand, its leaders said Thursday. A new global holding company will oversee two partnerships: DLA Piper US and DLA Piper International.”
• “‘We’ve never had a single leadership team that together drives the strategic direction of the firm,’ said Frank Ryan, the New York lawyer who will serve as the firm’s chair and global co-CEO, alongside London-based Charles Severs. ‘So now we’re going to be looking at the best opportunities for the firm and lawyers in the firm in unified fashion, as opposed to one group is looking after its own or the other after itself,’ Ryan said.”
• “Another imperative is to drive profitability in both partnerships of the new company, Ryan and Severs said. The firm is looking to competing with elite law firms for top tier talent and has already made in-roads picking up key hires from Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Kirkland & Ellis, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.”
• “‘Some of that profitability will and can be shared, but not all,’ Severs said of the US and international operations, citing regulatory, tax, and other hurdles.”
• “The change will give DLA Piper a unified global strategy at a time when it is vital for firms to have deep benches of lawyers in critically important markets across the globe, according to Ryan. ‘It’s almost like the world is coming to us right now as there’s more and more pressure on globalization,’ Ryan said.”
• “The verein structure offers some benefits, but its not the best option for firms looking to compete globally for the best talent in the most important markets, said Mark Jungers, chief strategy officer of global recruitment firm Centerpeak LLC.”
• “‘There are currently and will be in the future, winners and losers for the battle for talent and the battle for the best work and this enables them to compete more effectively for those two things,’ Jungers said.”
• “Those hires ‘are just a symptom of what we’re going to do,’ Severs said. ‘It’s the beginning of our ability to attract talent on a global basis—a truly global basis—and we just have not done enough of that before,’ he said.”

“Florida Federal Judge Seeks to Unmask Funders Behind Her Cases” —

• “A recently-appointed federal judge in Florida wants to know if outside funders are backing cases in her court.”
• “Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe earlier this month began instructing parties to name any outside funders involved in the cases and state whether their approval is necessary for litigation or settlement decisions. Moe also wants to know if any funders or related entities are affiliated with foreign governments.”
• “‘Sanctions including dismissal of the action, entry of a default, or monetary sanctions may be entered against a non-compliant party or counsel,’ Moe wrote.”
• Full text of order: here.

David Kluft asks: “Can I swap time entries with other billers so we all meet our daily quotas?” —

• “A CO lawyer worked at a firm with daily billable hours requirements for legal staff. In at least one instance, in order to meet the requirements, he ‘swapped’ billable hours with a legal intern who had a lower billing rate, resulting in a .1 hour change in the amount the lawyer billed that day.”
• “The lawyer received a stayed suspension for this violation of rule 8.4(c) (deceptive conduct) and other misconduct, including client neglect and negligent misuse.”
• Ruling: here.

David Kluft asks: “Is it a conflict for an Attorney General to bring criminal charges against a Governor?” —

• “The Northern Mariana Islands Attorney General brought charges against the Governor for theft and misconduct in public office, stemming from the use of public funds for fancy first-class air travel. The Governor’s travel violated a specific travel statute and a more general statute for when ‘A person, being a public official, commits the offense of misconduct in public office if the person, does any illegal act under the color of office.'”
• “The Governor moved to disqualify the entire Office of Attorney General, arguing that the statute by definition was brought against a person in their official capacity, since it can only be violated by a person with a public job. Therefore, the argument goes, since the AG represents the Governor in an official capacity, it can’t now be adverse to him in an official capacity.”
• “The lower court agreed and disqualified the AG, but the N.M.I. Supreme Court reversed on appeal. The statue specifically applies to ‘a person’ who commits a crime ‘under color of office,’ and therefore the statutory language indicates that he is being charged in his personal capacity for doing things in public office he should not have done.”
• “In addition, if he was only a party in his official capacity, he is not Governor anymore so the charges would now be irrelevant, which was plainly not the case. Disqualification reversed.”
• Decision: here.

“Motion to disqualify former Connecticut Assistant Attorney General denied in generic drug antitrust MDL” —

• “The defendants who sought to disqualify ex-Connecticut counsel from representing private plaintiffs in connection with similar antitrust and restraint of trade claims did not show a violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “In the large and long-running generic drug price fixing multi-district litigation, there was no valid stated reason to disqualify a former Connecticut assistant attorney general who joined a private law firm representing private plaintiffs Molina Healthcare and Humana Inc. after having represented Connecticut with respect to the same or similar antitrust claims, held the federal district court in Philadelphia. The former Connecticut attorney did not violate the Pennsylvania rules of professional conduct.”
• “The court did not find any prejudice where all parties were sharing nearly all information in question pursuant to pre-trial orders (PTOs) during the course of routine discovery (In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:20-cv-06303-CMR (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2026)).”
• Decision: here.

“Judge declines to recuse himself after Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney sought removal from immigration case” —

• “A federal judge has declined to recuse himself from an immigration case after Minnesota’s U.S. Attorney raised concerns about an alleged appearance of partiality over his marriage to the state’s solicitor general.”
• “In an order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan determined ‘no reasonable person’ could believe his marriage to Liz Kramer — the lead counsel in Minnesota’s lawsuit against the Trump administration’s immigration surge — might influence his view in the immigration case. He rejected the federal prosecutor’s claim that he had not disclosed his marriage before, calling it a ‘well-known’ fact that’s been mentioned in many court filings in cases from which he’s recused himself since they involved the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
• “Bryan also wrote that he and lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office have had ‘more than one casual conversation’ about his wife several months before. ‘The Court presumes Respondents’ counsel was not willfully misleading when he suggested that he only just learned of this fact a few days ago,’ Bryan said.”
• “U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen raised the issue in a motion filed Thursday, calling for Bryan to recuse himself after learning about the marriage through ‘public media sources’ and determined the judge’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ Rosen said the arguments raised by Kramer in the state’s ongoing lawsuit against Operation Metro Surge are similar to the ones cited in the immigration case overseen by Bryan. Rosen specifically drew parallels in the state’s lawsuit and the immigration case about allegations of warrantless arrests, racial profiling, arrests of U.S. citizens and more during the surge of federal immigration agents to Minnesota.”
• “Bryan ruled Rosen’s claim is ‘not persuasive,’ saying the arguments listed by Rosen are merely ‘general background facts’ about Operation Metro Surge that the U.S. government has not disputed in any of the more than 1,000 habeas cases filed since the deployment began Dec. 1. Bryan determined the arguments made in the state’s broader lawsuit are also fundamentally different from the immigrant’s habeas case — which seeks to challenge the immigrant’s detention.”
• “Bryan added that Rosen had not met with the immigrant’s attorney prior to making his recusal request, despite the court’s rules for parties to meet before filing any motion. Daniel Suitor, the attorney for the immigrant, previously told the Minnesota Star Tribune he was surprised over the motion and later filed a motion opposing the recusal request.”

“Glass Lewis Opposes Samsung Life, Fire & Marine Board Nominees Over Conflict Concerns” —

• “Global proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis has come out against the appointment of outside directors at Samsung Life Insurance and Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance. The firm cited potential conflicts of interest, noting that the nominees’ law firms have provided legal services to the companies.”
• “According to financial industry sources on March 13, Glass Lewis recommended against the reappointment of Lim Chae-min as an outside director and audit committee member at Samsung Life Insurance in its proxy report for institutional investors. The firm also recommended voting against the new appointment of Kim Jae-shin as an outside director at Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance.”
• “Glass Lewis raised concerns that law firm Lee & Ko, where Lim serves as an advisor, provided legal services to Samsung Group in 2024-2025. The firm warned this could create conflicts between board decisions and personal interests, and could influence the company’s selection of legal services.”
• “‘Given that the current board does not have a sufficient proportion of outside directors, we find it difficult to support a candidate with such ties,’ Glass Lewis said.”
• “The proxy advisor opposed Kim’s nomination at Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance for similar reasons. Kim currently serves as an advisor at Kim & Chang, a law firm that has provided legal services to the company. Glass Lewis added that the board has not secured enough independent directors to provide adequate oversight in protecting shareholder interests.”

“Waivable Conflict from Counsel’s Firm’s Prior Representation of a Victim Bank and Permissible PSR Disclosure to Treatment Providers on Supervised Release” —

• “In United States v. Wells (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (summary order), defendant-appellant Laurell Wells appealed from a judgment of conviction in the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.) following a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349), bank fraud and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2), and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1), 1028A(b), 2). The district court imposed an aggregate 132-month term of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.”
• “Wells raised two principal issues on appeal:”
  • “Whether the district court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw based on an asserted conflict arising from counsel’s firm’s prior representation of Chase Bank, an institutional victim of the charged fraud scheme.”
  • “Whether the district court erred by authorizing disclosure of Wells’s Presentence Report (PSR) and mental-health evaluations to his cognitive behavioral therapy provider as part of supervised release.”
• “The Second Circuit affirmed on both issues. Although the decision is a nonprecedential summary order, it is a useful synthesis of the Circuit’s conflict-waiver framework and its supervision-condition jurisprudence regarding treatment-related disclosures.”
• “The court held that: (1) counsel’s firm’s prior representation of Chase created, at most, a waivable potential conflict, not an ‘actual’ or ‘unwaivable’ conflict; (2) the district court satisfied its duty to inquire and properly conducted a Curcio waiver process, and Wells knowingly and intelligently waived conflict-free representation; and (3) the supervised release authorization allowing the Probation Office to provide the therapist with the PSR and mental-health evaluations was within the court’s broad discretion and was reasonably related to treatment needs under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), without imposing a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary.”
• “The conflict inquiry: the court’s threshold duty: The panel first evaluates whether the district court satisfied its obligation to identify and classify the potential conflict. Applying Lussier and Kliti, it emphasizes that the trial court may rely on counsel’s representations and must determine whether the conflict is actual, potential, or nonexistent. The record showed: (i) counsel disclosed the issue pretrial; (ii) the court required written submissions; (iii) counsel explained why the conflict was ‘background,’ likely not strategically salient, and waivable; and (iv) the court held a hearing to address waiver. That sequence satisfied the inquiry obligation.”
• “Classification: why this was ‘waivable potential,’ not ‘unwaivable’: Wells argued that prior firm representation of Chase (a victim bank) created an ‘actual and unwaivable’ conflict. The panel rejected that framing. Relying on Perez (unwaivable conflicts are rare) and decisions treating prior representation of witnesses/codefendants as generally waivable (Perez, Leslie, Basciano), the court reasoned that:”
  • “Chase was an institutional victim rather than a current client whose interests were being actively advanced in related litigation.”
  • “The firm obtained a conflicts waiver from Chase, which purported to free counsel to cross-examine Chase witnesses without limitation.”
  • “Even when prior representation might affect cross-examination decisions, Second Circuit doctrine treats that as a candidate for disclosure and waiver, not automatic disqualification.”
• “The net doctrinal move is to locate the case within the ordinary Curcio-waiver universe rather than the exceptional ‘no rational defendant’ category that mandates disqualification under Lussier.”
• “Validity of Wells’s waiver: knowing, voluntary, intelligent: The panel upholds the waiver as adequate under Curcio and Arrington. It highlights multiple safeguards:
  • “Wells received notice of the conflict in advance and discussed it in court.”
  • “The district court explained the risk (e.g., less vigorous cross-examination of Chase employees because of the firm relationship).”
  • “The court repeatedly offered to appoint independent counsel to advise Wells, which he declined.”
  • “When Wells later sought to replace counsel, his stated reasons centered on tactical disagreement, not renewed conflict concerns.”
  • “The district court revisited and clarified the conflict on the first day of trial, including eliciting the government’s preview of the Chase witness testimony.”
• “The panel also rejects Wells’s claim that he was coerced into waiver by the prospect of proceeding pro se. It treats the ‘counsel vs. pro se’ choice as arising only after Wells’s tactical dispute, and it invokes Rosemond and Rivernider to explain that strategic friction does not entitle a defendant to new counsel, especially when substitution would disrupt trial.”

David Kluft asks: “Can lawyers who voted for Biden effectively communicate with a client who voted for Trump?” —

• “Two NY plaintiffs sued a law firm for malpractice, alleging that the firm negligently advised them on whether to take a settlement. The plaintiffs proffered a corporate law professor as an expert on ‘legal ethics and the practice of law,’ even though ‘virtually none of his experience involve[d] legal ethics, either generally or specifically.'”
• “The Court noted that the Professor’s opinion was unreliable, including because he misinterpreted an ABA opinion and ‘depart[ed] from the factual record.’ The Professor also came up with a strange speculative method for determining malpractice, musing that because the firm was dominated by Biden supporters (which was not actually true), they were incapable of fulfilling their Rule 1.4 duties to communicate with their Trump supporting clients.”
• “The Court held that the Professor ‘failed to show that researching an individual’s political donations to learn if an attorney has a different political ideology than their client is an accepted or newly innovative method used by legal ethics experts to support a malpractice claim.’ Testimony excluded.”
• Decision: here.