Happy New Year!
“Attorney disqualified over settlement discussion” —
- “A Business Court judge has decided to disqualify an attorney who engaged in a lengthy settlement conference without first obtaining the consent of opposing counsel. “
- “The plaintiff engaged a firm to represent it in a suit against the defendants. On Dec. 24, 2025, one defendant contacted a partner at the law firm, asking if he, the partner and other defendant could meet in the hope of resolving the case. The complaint had not yet been served on any of the defendants. “
- “The meeting was held at the law firm’s office on Christmas Day. During the meeting, one defendant expressly told the partner he had a lawyer, but he would not tell the partner his name. The partner claimed that he received no confidential information during the meeting and that instead the over-90-minute meeting focused on settling the case. “
- “‘To make a long, irrelevant story short (of which the plaintiff waxes eloquently), the settlement talks were unsuccessful, and this case has been hotly litigated,’ Judge Michael Warren noted. “
- “‘Before the Court is Defendants Rapid Restoration 24/7 LLC, Ari Kostelitz, Chesky Weinberger, and Zev Goldner’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Gold Star Restoration MI LLC. … At stake in this Motion is whether MRPC 4.2 is violated when the Plaintiff’s lawyer who knows an individual Defendant is represented by opposing counsel can engage in a lengthy settlement conference without first obtaining the consent of that Defendant’s lawyer? Because the answer is ‘yes,’ and disqualification is a proper remedy, the Motion is granted,’ the judge wrote. “
- “‘Despite his protestations to the contrary, [the partner] clearly violated MRPC 2.4(a). The Rule required that [the partner] receive the permission of [the defendant’s] lawyer, not [the defendant], to continue the Christmas Day discussion. This is a bright line rule. This is akin to when a criminal defendant asks for a lawyer in the middle of a custodial interrogation — the officers must stop. Full stop. MRPC 2.4(a) is at least as strong — it prohibits any discussion until permission is granted by the lawyer. There are no ‘well, we didn’t talk about confidential information,’ or ‘it was just settlement discussions,’ or ‘the meeting was initiated by the other party’ exceptions. [The partner] dances around the fact that he knew [the defendant] was represented and continued communicating with him for over 90 minutes in an effort to settle the case. In the unlikely event the learned [the partner] is unaware, the Court takes judicial notice that nearly all of its civil cases settle. In other words, settlement discussions are the whole ballgame approximately 99% of the time. Downplaying the ethical violation by focusing on the fact that the subject matter was only about settlement actually exacerbates the wrong. The moving parties have met their burden,’ Warren stated. “
- “‘[The partner] and his firm should be disqualified. This was no fleeting discussion that only tangentially affected the case. By an ill-gotten ethical violation, [the partner] now knows the parties’ settlement positions. Again, this is almost always the whole ballgame. The only measure to protect the integrity of the profession and the integrity of this case is to disqualify [the partner] and his firm. This bell cannot be unrung or cured by a lesser sanction. The havoc across the justice system that would ensue with a contrary ruling would be too much to bear,’ the judge concluded. “
- “The six-page decision is Gold Star Restoration MI LLC v. Klainberg; MiLW No. 10-110086. “
“Oura Health’s Legal Battle: Former CEO Challenges Firm Over Potential Conflict of Interest” —
- “…the former CEO of Oura Health has moved to disqualify the esteemed law firm Quinn Emanuel from representing the company in a lawsuit concerning his termination. The ex-CEO argues that he disclosed confidential details to the firm during consultations regarding his claims before the initiation of the lawsuit.”
- “The former executive contends that during preliminary discussions, sensitive information was shared, which could now be unfairly leveraged against him, raising ethical and procedural concerns.”
- “Lawyers for Luigi Mangione on Friday renewed and expanded their effort to have the death penalty thrown out in his case, arguing Attorney General Pam Bondi has a disqualifying financial conflict of interest.”
- “In court filings reviewed by Fox News Digital, the defense argued that Bondi’s calls for the death penalty following Mangione’s arrest were improper because she was previously a partner at Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm that represented UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of slain CEO Brian Thompson.”
- “The defense argues Bondi continues to receive financial benefits through Ballard’s profit-sharing plan and should have recused herself from any role in the case.”
- “Mangione’s attorneys further argued that when Bondi left Ballard Partners to become attorney general in 2025, the first defendant she ‘personally selected’ for capital punishment was the man accused of killing the CEO of her former client.”
- “Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Dec. 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel where the company was hosting an investor conference. The execution-style shooting was caught on camera and prosecutors allege that Mangione targeted Thompson due to financial and corporate grievances. Mangione fled the scene but was captured days later.”
“JPMorgan says Javice firms billed millions just for ‘attendance’” —
- “JPMorgan Chase & Co. said Charlie Javice’s ‘unconscionable’ $74 million tab for legal fees included more than $5 million in charges for lawyers and other staff just for attending her fraud trial, even on days court wasn’t in session.”
- “A previously sealed Delaware court filing released Monday offered the most detailed picture yet of JPMorgan’s claim that Javice, who was convicted in March of defrauding the largest US bank in a $175 million deal, abused a 2023 order requiring it to cover the costs of her defense. “
- “JPMorgan is seeking to avoid $10.2 million in disputed charges and end the requirement that it pay future bills. Lawyers at Javice’s five law firms billed unnecessary work and inappropriate expenses under the mindset that ‘someone else is paying her bills,’ according to the filing.”
- “The bank focused much of its criticism on Javice’s two largest firms, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, which it said ‘have already received tens of millions, and seek millions more for patently unreasonable fees and expenses that constitute clear abuse.’ “
- “In a statement, a Quinn Emanuel spokesman said, ‘JPMorgan is trying to walk away from its contractual obligation to pay the remainder of Ms. Javice’s legal bills — all in hopes it can cut off her right to pursue her meritorious appeal.’ Mintz didn’t immediately respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment.”
- “Quinn Emanuel’s fee’s ‘skyrocketed’ after telling the court before trial that it anticipated transitioning its responsibilities to Mintz, JPMorgan argued. And the Mintz Levin lawyers were ‘peripheral and unnecessary, even during trial,’ the bank said.”
- “JPMorgan said that Javice had as many as 16 to 29 lawyers and other legal professionals in court for every day of her trial, billing an average of $360,000 a day during the six weeks of the trial. No more then four lawyers had speaking roles, and many of the bills were for ‘trial attendance alone,’ JPMorgan said. ‘Javice’s counsel even improperly billed for trial ‘attendance’ on non-trial days.'”
- “According to the bank, lawyers attending the trial charged a number of inappropriate expenses, the bank said. Included in 2,377 pages of receipts submitted for March were a Cookie Monster toddler’s toy, lavender and jasmine sachets, 57 hotel room upgrades at $300 a night and a $900 meal at Koloman, a highly rated New York restaurant, JPMorgan said.”
- “A New York jury found Javice guilty of misleading JPMorgan into acquiring her student-finance startup, Frank, by creating millions of fake users for the site. She was sentenced in September to seven years in prison but is free on bail pending her appeal.”
- “As part of her sentence, Javice was ordered to repay the legal fees JPMorgan covered. But even if that order is upheld, the bank is unlikely to ever get back more than a small fraction of the total amount. Javice is only required to pay 10% of her income in restitution after she leaves prison, and the order expires in 20 years.”