“‘Our Colleague Has Been Vindicated’: Court Won’t Remove Lawyer From Case” —

• “The Texas First Court of Appeals rejected an attempt to disqualify Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing from representing Transocean and other defendants in consolidated Hurricane Zeta litigation, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish a disqualifying conflict of interest.”
• “The two-page opinion allows Houston-based AZA to continue defending Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., Triton Voyager Asset Leasing GmbH, and Triton Voyager Asset Leasing GmbH in litigation involving crew member injuries aboard the Deepwater Asgard drilling rig during the October 2020 storm.”
• “The 23 plaintiffs claimed AZA attorney Karina Sanchez-Perlata created a conflict of interest because she previously worked on a case involving Dr. Henry Small, one of the treating physicians in the litigation. She previously worked as a law clerk at Arnold Itkin, the firm representing plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed Sanchez-Perlata had access to confidential information about Dr. Small after she joined AZA, and that she could use it against them.”
• “But the appellate court didn’t agree. ‘Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. We lift the stay of trial court proceedings,’ according to the opinion by the three-judge panel, which consisted of Justices Amparo ‘Amy’ Guerra, Kristin Guiney and Andrew Johnson.”
• “The opinion affirmed the trial court’s ruling from December 2024, in which it denied the motion to remove AZA because the Judge wrote, ‘Plaintiffs had failed to show a ‘substantial relationship’ between the prior representation and this litigation, as well as prejudice.'”
• ‘Today’s ruling not only speaks to the merits of the underlying allegations but also to the strategy deployed to attack a former summer associate,’ said Shahmeer Halepota, co-lead attorney on the case with AZA Law. ‘We are thrilled that our colleague has been vindicated.'”

“OLPR seeks discipline of lawyer in conflict-of-interest case” —

• “The Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has announced it is seeking discipline of attorney John Richards III for providing representation for both a man accused of felony criminal sexual conduct and the mother of the alleged victim.”
• “Richards was retained to defend A.T. on felony charges of alleged criminal sexual conduct. The alleged victim was A.T.’s minor stepdaughter, K.L., who alleged that A.T. abused her repeatedly in their home.”
• “Richards also gave legal advice to J.T., mother of K.L. and A.T.’s wife, about K.L. Specifically, he provided guidance about the girl’s participation in interviews about the alleged abuse.”
• “The OLPR petition states that ‘the interests of the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim were directly adverse.’ This became clearer as the matter unfolded. Richards also did not ask for or obtain informed consent regarding this conflict.”
• “J.T. was contacted by law enforcement regarding the investigation in her daughter’s allegations. She contacted Richards, who told her not to speak to anyone about her husband’s alleged conduct or allow her daughter to speak about it without Richards’ approval.”
• “The daughter was scheduled for a forensic protocol interview. Richards told the mother to not allow her daughter to talk to anyone unless the person wanting to schedule the interview contacted Richards first.”
• “The mother subsequently refused to allow her daughter to attend the interview. She informed law enforcement and social services that Richards was the ‘family attorney.’ Police informed the mother that Richards could not represent her daughter due to a conflict of interest. Ultimately, J.T. agreed to the interview.”
• “‘While the forensic protocol interview could further K.L.’s (and therefore J.T.’s as her caregiver) interest in obtaining support services, the interview could also lead to the disclosure of facts damaging to the step-father’s interest in defending against K.L.’s allegations,’ the petition asserts.”
• “Richards is accused of violating Rules 1.7(a)(1), 1.7(a)(2), 1.5(b)(1), 1.15(c)(5), 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(d), 4.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). “

David Kluft writes: “Can multiple prospective clients bring a class action against ambulance chasers for illegal solicitation?” —

• “After a minor car accident, a TX woman received an unsolicited phone call from a “case runner” who claimed he got her contact information from her insurer, and who offered her $10K to ‘sign up’ for legal representation with a particular law firm.”
• “The woman later alleged that this call violated the Texas barratry law and Texas ethics Rule 7.03 (prohibition on solicitation). She filed a putative class action against the firm on behalf of ‘all Texas citizens whose vehicles were involved in motor vehicle crashes and were subsequently contacted by [the firm]’ during a certain date range.”
• “However, the Court dismissed the case due to ‘no ascertainable class.’ This was because determining whether any particular communication was a prohibited ‘solicitation’ would require individualized inquiry into whether the communication qualified as a solicitation under 7.03 ( e.g., was it ‘substantially motivated pecuniary gain,’ did the prospective client reach out first, etc.); whether one of the exemptions to Rule 7.03 applied (e.g., was the prospective client a lawyer, a family member or close friend, or an ‘experienced user’ of legal services); and whether the case runner was acting as the firm’s agent.”
• Decision: here.