Risk Update

Legal Conflicts Considered — “Forgotten” Client Conflict Sans Adverse Effect Escapes Lawyer Disqualification, Bitcoin Battle Brings Conflicts Clash

Posted Dan Bressler

David Kluft asks: “If a lawyer and former client don’t remember or recognize each other, is it still a conflict of interest for them to be adverse?” —

  • “An OH lawyer represented a defendant in a murder trial. The lawyer had represented an adverse witness in the case five years earlier. However, it was undisputed that he didn’t remember or recognize the witness, and the witness didn’t remember or recognize the lawyer, so nobody noticed the conflict or discussed it with the defendant.”
  • “About 15 years after his conviction for murder, the defendant found out about the conflict and filed a motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance, claiming that the lawyer’s loyalties to the witness (his former client) conflicted with his duties to the defendant.”
  • “The OH Ct. of Appeals denied the motion because the defendant was unable to point to a specific adverse effect and because, ‘without knowledge of the supposed conflict, trial counsel’s performance could not have been impacted by the conflict.'”
    Opinion: here.

“Big Law, Bitcoin and Conflicts: Dickinson Wright Hit With Malpractice Suit” —

  • “Dickinson Wright and several of its lawyers are facing a malpractice lawsuit in Michigan state court alleging that they overstated their Bitcoin regulatory expertise and failed to disclose conflicts of interest in a cryptocurrency recovery effort.”
  • “The case dates back to early 2022, when the Jonna Group retained Dickinson Wright in connection with a $541,045 investment in Bitcoin Latinum, a cryptocurrency project the investors alleged engaged in securities fraud. The clients sought the recovery of their principal and lost profits, which the law firm allegedly valued at more than $6.7 million.”
  • “Dickinson Wright promoted its experience in Bitcoin regulation and the credentials of partners Frank Gilligan and Jacob S. Frenkel, including Frenkel’s experience in whistleblower matters, per the lawsuit. At various times, the firm projected a potential case value of up to $120 million and described Frenkel as a ‘master of the craft,’ representations that the plaintiffs said induced them to retain the firm.”
  • “Key to the litigation strategy, the lawsuit alleged, was the role of Don Basile, an individual connected to Bitcoin Latinum who was also involved in other crypto startups and had a sketchy reputation. The firm allegedly advised that the Jonna Group could pursue whistleblower status tied to anticipated U.S. government investigations into Basile and related entities.”
  • “However, the strategy unraveled because Dickinson Wright allegedly failed to disclose a conflict of interest involving Basile and affiliated companies, per the complaint. The firm had an attorney-client relationship with Monsoon Blockchain Corp., an entity contractually linked to Bitcoin Latinum through intellectual property and network agreements funded by token presales.”
  • “Bitcoin Latinum was associated with non-fungible token projects and other ventures affiliated with Monsoon and entities owned or operated by Basile, the lawsuit says. At the same time, Dickinson Wright represented Basile and received attorney fees from Monsoon as a current client, even as it pursued claims on Jonna Group’s behalf against Bitcoin Latinum.”
  • “The conflict surfaced when Dickinson Wright served discovery demands on Bitcoin Latinum, seeking formation documents relating to Monsoon, prompting a motion to disqualify the firm, according to the complaint. In support of that motion, Bitcoin Latinum disclosed payments it had made to Dickinson Wright for legal services provided to Monsoon.”
  • “The plaintiffs further alleged that they later learned that Dickinson Wright intentionally failed to file a formal whistleblower claim because of its undisclosed relationship with Basile and his companies. That decision, the lawsuit says, jeopardized the Jonna Group’s ability to recover a judgment by failing to name Basile as a defendant and preserve potential whistleblower protections.”
  • “The complaint alleged that the disqualification required the investors to retain successor counsel, driving up legal costs because new attorneys had to become familiar with the underlying litigation. The plaintiffs also alleged that Dickinson Wright engaged in excessive billing, including fees associated with whistleblower efforts that ultimately yielded no recovery.”