“Double duty by attorney fails to void settlement” —

• “A defendant employer could not extricate itself from an otherwise fair global settlement on the basis that the plaintiffs’ counsel should not have been allowed to represent both a class and individual plaintiffs in litigation against it, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed.”
• “The challenge inherent in simultaneously representing a class and individual plaintiffs is a ‘matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class’ that Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to consider, noted Judge William J. Kayatta Jr., writing for the panel.”
• “The defendant employer argued that the trial judge should have withheld approval of the class action settlement due to what it viewed as the plaintiffs’ counsel’s disqualifying conflict: his duty to maximize recovery for members of the class as well as the three individual plaintiffs.”
• “‘Leading treatises appear to be split on the question of whether counsel may concurrently represent individual plaintiffs and a class against the same defendants,’ Kayatta wrote, adding that the panel had found ‘no on-point case law in this circuit or in others’ addressing such an arrangement.”
• “However, the panel said it was significant that it was not reviewing the decision to appoint class counsel in the first instance under Rule 23(g) but rather whether a class action settlement was properly approved under Rule 23(e)(2).”
• “The inquiry under Rule 23(e)(2) called for a ‘retrospective assessment of counsel’s representation,’ and there was no evidence that the class members had been prejudiced by their attorney pulling double duty, the panel determined.”
• “‘As the district court explained, class counsel’s actual performance offers not a hint of any conflict-induced shortfall in the adequacy of his representation of the class,’ Kayatta wrote.”
• “Not only did the lawyer secure recoveries for each class member that exceeded the total damages they had suffered, but the excess over the actual damages they stood to receive compared favorably to the average excess received by the three individual plaintiffs, the panel pointed out.”
• “The plaintiffs’ attorney had also highlighted his representation of the three individual plaintiffs in the written notice of the settlement that he sent to the 43 class members, and none opted out or voiced any objection, the panel said.”
• “If the settlement were unwound, there was no reason to think the class members would be better off, according to the panel”
• “‘Like the district court, we see no reason why this actual result must be cast aside — at the behest of [the defendants] and without a hint of dissatisfaction from the class itself — merely because there was the potential for a different result that was never realized,’ Kayatta wrote.”
• “The 32-page decision is Mongue v. The Wheatleigh Corporation, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-011-26.”

“Thomson Geer to sell stake in Labor lobby shop TG Public over conflict fears” —

• “[Australia’s Seventh Largest Law Firm] Thomson Geer has decided to sell its stake in a major Labor-aligned lobby group to soothe fears that the pair’s current relationship could endanger the lucrative flow of government work that the national law firm has recently added to its books.”
• “However, the law firm and lobby group will continue to co-operate under a ‘strategic agreement’, a move Thomson Geer hopes will reduce the potential for conflicts of interest when its lawyers represent the Commonwealth, a work stream worth tens of millions to Thomson Geer annually.”
• “‘There are some conflict sensitivities which have caused us reluctantly to divest our stake in TG Public. We’ll continue to collaborate with TG Public but outside those areas,’ Thomson Geer chief executive partner Adrian Tembel said.”
• “The divestment comes after Thomson Geer absorbed the entire Canberra office of rival firm Ashurst last year, adding seven partners who specialise in acting for the federal government and who have transplanted their Commonwealth matters and billings to Thomson Geer.”
• “‘Unfortunately, due to entering the Commonwealth law market very significantly last year through the Ashurst acquisition, we’ve had to reassess our priorities and our conflict position,’ Tembel said. ‘We’ve prioritised the Commonwealth, obviously.'”
• “According to AusTender, a public record of government contracts, Thomson Geer’s most valuable Commonwealth client is the Department of Defence, worth over $10 million in billings for the 2025-26 financial year to date. The firm has also won work from the Australian Submarine Agency, for which it is charging some $2.5 million for legal services.”
• “A slew of Thomson Geer’s ex-Ashurst partners, including Steve McKinney, Sarah Ross-Smith and Angela Summersby, are longtime Canberra favourites in public sector procurement and acquisition matters. TG Public Affairs, meanwhile, has a major roster of defence-sector clients, including German shipbuilder TKMS, US defence firm Northrop Grumman and Swedish contractor Saab.”
• “Representatives of Thomson Geer and TG Public Affairs would not comment on what kinds of conflict sensitivity animated the law firm’s decision to divest.”
  “Thomson Geer’s other major Commonwealth clients include the Department of Finance, which it billed at least $6 million in 2025-26, and the Department of Employment, which is paying the firm $2.5 million. In total, Thomson Geer has signed more than 110 legal services contracts with the Commonwealth in 2025-26 so far, for billings of at least $27 million.”

“New Postmark Rule = New Malpractice Exposure” —

• “For years a postmark would reliably document the date you mailed something, but not anymore. As of December 24, 2025, those glory days have passed due to recent USPS operational changes, and the USPS has formally acknowledged this. These changes create real malpractice exposure anywhere a statute, rule, or agency treats a postmark as proof of timely filing. In response, you should now assume that a postmark may be one or more days late, especially in rural areas, and adjust your internal practices accordingly.”
• “Since 2021, USPS has been consolidating nearly 200 local processing centers into about 60 large regional hubs, while also reducing the number of daily dispatches from local post offices. USPS has now codified in its Domestic Mail Manual that a postmark ‘does not inherently or necessarily align’ with the date a piece of mail was deposited. This is not a small operational tweak; it fundamentally breaks the decades‑long assumption that a postmark is reliable evidence of mailing.”
• “Mail used to be processed locally, often the same day it was dropped off. Now mail from many communities will travel hundreds of miles to a regional processing center before receiving a postmark. In fact, ten states will now have 100% of their mail processed out of state. (e.g., Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Mississippi)”
• “Under the new Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) schedule, post offices more than 50 miles from a processing center now send outgoing mail once per day, typically early morning. Anything dropped off after that cutoff may not begin its journey until the next day.”
• “Taken together, these changes mean a letter dropped off on a Monday afternoon may not be postmarked until Tuesday or Wednesday despite being timely mailed and the postal service acknowledges that this is to now be an expected outcome, not an anomaly.”
• “If a lawyer mails something on time but receives a late postmark, they may still be held responsible for an untimely filing, which means the malpractice exposure from a missed deadline is very real. Making matters worse: rural lawyers and clients are going to be disproportionately affected. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to reduce the risk:”
• “First, make sure that everyone at your firm understands that ‘mailed today’ does not mean ‘postmarked today.'”
• “Second, use electronic filing whenever possible. If something must be sent through the mail, go to the counter and request a hand‑stamped postmark; and never cut it close without first making sure the local post office is going to be open.”
• “Third, consider using a priority mail service that provides tracking and timestamped acceptance.”
• “And finally, if you’d like to know more about the changes USPS has made and the impact on lawyers, I strongly encourage you to read what Brookings has reported at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/when-a-postmark-no-longer-tracks-mailing/ “