“Lawyer’s disqualification in LLC member dispute upheld” —

• “The lawyer for a cannabis business organized as a limited liability company could not represent a member in a dispute with another member — notwithstanding the client member’s claim that the LLC lacked an actual, independent interest in the outcome of the litigation, the Appeals Court has found.”
• “The case involved a dispute between Sean Morrison and Robert Bujold, who both held a 50 percent interest in Cannaburg Cultivation Cooperative when the LLC was sued for breaching a contract with an architectural and engineering corporation. The corporation had been hired to convert a property owned by a company owned by Bujold — 310 Broad Street II, LLC — into a cannabis cultivation facility.”
• “In the course of the litigation, Bujold asserted third-party impleader claims against Morrison for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Bujold later moved to disqualify Morrison’s counsel in the impleader action, Katherine Bierwas, who also represented Cannaburg.”
• “According to Bujold, by taking up Morrison’s case, Bierwas was in violation of Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, which prohibits the simultaneous representation of adverse parties.”
• “But Morrison contended that Cannaburg’s interests were not adverse to Morrison’s because the LLC was a ‘nominal’ party in the impleader action with no independent interest in the outcome of the litigation.”
• “Superior Court Judge Valerie A. Yarashus in a July 2024 decision concluded that Rule 1.7 prohibited Bierwas from representing both Cannaburg and Morrison because their interests were directly adverse and could not be waived.”
• “An Appeals Court panel affirmed in a per curiam decision.”
• “‘Here, Attorney Bierwas has a duty to act in the interests of Cannaburg and ensure the directors are acting in the interests of the company, while she also has a competing interest in defending her client, Morrison, from claims that he was breaching his duties to Cannaburg,’ the panel wrote. ‘Thus, as the judge below points out, Attorney Bierwas’s claim that Cannaburg has no viable action against Morrison is the very reason Rule 1.7 exists.'”
• “The 15-page decision is Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. v. Cannaburg Cultivation Cooperative, LLC, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 81-004-26.”

“PR in Professional Services: Navigating Conflicts Without Going Quiet” —

• “In professional services, trust is everything. Whether you’re advising on legal, financial, or strategic matters, clients expect discretion—and that extends to how your firm communicates publicly. PR and media relations are powerful tools to build brand visibility and showcase expertise. But when client relationships are sensitive or commercially complex, conflict risks can make media engagement tricky.”
• “Here’s how to navigate those challenges effectively. Common Conflict Triggers. Before engaging with the media, firms should assess whether public statements:
  • a) make direct or indirect reference to a client or matter (or new business prospect)”
  • b) are addressing—or advocating a position on—a subject-matter which is particularly sensitive to a client or ongoing matter”
  • c) appear to be advocating a position on a subject which is likely to preclude them from future new business opportunities (for instance due to procurement rules, tender processes, panel criteria, etc.)”
  • d) reference existing clients which are happy to be named publicly but which are likely to present conflict issues for the firm when it comes to new business opportunities”
  • e) include insights which have been gleaned from the experience of advising a particular client who may be uncomfortable with details of their experiences being discussed publicly (even if fully anonymised)”
• “Conflict considerations can present obstacles to a PR and media relations campaign. For instance, when a news story relates to or has features in common with an existing client or matter, it can prevent the firm engaging with what otherwise could have been an opportunity to project expertise to the market and raise brand profile.”
• “Some PR opportunities will be a definite no-go based on conflict factors. Other times, an opportunity may involve some potential sensitivities, but the issue or story is significant enough that the firm chooses to accept the risk – though proceeds with caution.”
• “Detailed consideration of conflicts can also present a practical barrier to delivery of PR opportunities when they require a swift turnaround of content, as the process of internal coordination and approval from client relationship holders can be lengthy.”
  Practical solutions”
• “Ultimately, conflict issues are inevitable in B2B communications. Here are some tips to successfully manage them in a professional services PR campaign:
  • 1. Conflict mapping: When designing a PR strategy, it is valuable to involve both your spokespeople and business development teams to identify which organisations in a target sector, industry, or market should be excluded from media discussion on conflict grounds. This process clarifies which organisations remain viable targets, enabling the PR team to focus resources on monitoring news and pitching stories or commentary related specifically to them. Since it is unlikely that an advisory firm will represent all major players in an industry, there should always be viable options available.
  • 2. Media due diligence: Where conflicts are a particular concern, additional PR due diligence can help assess potential media opportunities. This may include clarifying the reporting angles, identifying sources to be quoted, and understanding which organisations are likely to be mentioned elsewhere in the write-up. Journalists may be willing to share these details in advance of an interview or commentary submission, allowing firms to better evaluate the risks of engagement from a conflict perspective. In addition, it may be useful to review previous media reports, as well as court records, public databases, and other resources to determine what information is already publicly available. This helps guide decisions about what can be appropriately disclosed in the media.
• 3. Spokesperson briefing and support: Before any direct media engagement, the firm’s spokespeople should be thoroughly briefed and supported by the PR team to ensure they fully understand the relevant conflict requirements and can navigate them confidently in discussions with journalists. This is where media training techniques come in useful, as well as providing comprehensive briefing materials, key messages, and FAQs for a spokesperson to review ahead of any encounter. A preparatory call or mock interview can also be an effective way to build confidence and reduce risk.”
• “Every professional services organisation has its own culture around how it publicises its work and its clients. Some adopt a more open approach which reflects their appetite for courting publicity, while others are more reserved. This is often shaped by the nature of their client relationships, as clients themselves vary in their attitudes toward PR and publicity. The role of PR professionals is to balance these considerations – adapting media strategies to protect client relationships, minimise risk, while still ensuring consistent brand visibility.”
• “A firm that represents multiple clients within a particular industry or market is likely to have deeper insights than one that does not. By sharing those insights with the media in a considered and responsible way, the firm can create value not only for its clients but also for the wider industry. With the right strategy, conflict-sensitive PR can still be bold, effective, and trusted.”

“CoStar Seeks to Disqualify Quinn Emanuel from Antitrust Case Over Alleged Conflict of Interest” —

• “… CoStar Group has asked a California federal judge to disqualify Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP from representing a competitor in an antitrust counterclaim. This litigation arises in the context of CoStar’s ongoing copyright infringement case against the rival commercial real estate platform. CoStar raises concerns about potential conflicts, given that Quinn Emanuel has previously represented CoStar in unrelated matters.”
• “The dispute centers on Quinn Emanuel’s prior service to CoStar and involves the law firm’s desire to terminate its ongoing representation of CoStar in separate litigation. The backdrop to this legal entanglement is an intricate battle over intellectual property and antitrust allegations in the competitive commercial real estate data market. CoStar’s motion aims to mitigate risks associated with a law firm holding material confidential information from previous representations.”
• Text of motion: here.