Risk Update

Cannabis and Crime Conflicts — Cannabis Conflicts and Business Drama, Prosecutor Calls Defense Attorney Conflicted

Posted Dan Bressler

“Prosecutor says fatal arson suspect’s attorney may have conflict” —

  • “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is questioning whether attorney Kevin A. Luibrand should be removed as counsel to the man accused of setting a 2013 fire in Schenectady that killed a 32-year-old father and his three young children.”
  • “In a motion filed in U.S. District Court, a federal prosecutor asked a judge to schedule a hearing to advise Edward A. Leon that Luibrand has a potential conflict of interest because his law firm also represents an ATF special agent in an unrelated sexual harassment case pending in Kentucky. The agent, Lauren Viup, previously worked in the Albany office of the ATF, and she had been part of the team that reopened the investigation of Leon, leading to his indictment in early August.”
  • “‘The government requests that the court determine whether a conflict does or could exist, whether the conflict can be waived, and if so, whether the defendant will knowingly waive his right to conflict-free representation,’ assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander P. Wentworth-Ping wrote in the government’s motion.”
  • “Luibrand’s firm represents Viup in a federal lawsuit she filed against former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the ATF in June 2024 when she was working for the ATF in Albany. The case centers on sexual harassment and physical abuse she alleges she was subjected to by another ATF agent when she was working in Louisville from 2019 to 2022.”

“Cannabis, Conflicts And Self-Dealing At Issue In Illinois Complaint” —

  • “The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging misconduct by an attorney who had been employed by three law firms (designated as Firms A, B and C) beginning in 2019.”
    • ‘From November 18, 2019 until March 3, 2021, Respondent was employed fulltime as a lawyer in the Boston office of a large international law firm (“Firm A”), where he concentrated his practice in the areas of private equity and corporate mergers and acquisitions. At all times related to the events described in this complaint, Respondent, as an attorney employee of Firm A, owed a fiduciary duty to Firm A and its partners to act with the highest degree of good faith and honesty in all matters relating to Firm A’s business and property and to avoid using the Firm A’s goodwill, reputation, and resources for his own personal benefit.’
  • “He allegedly owed similar duties to Firms B and C.”
    • ‘Respondent left Firm A on March 3, 2021. From April 5, 2021 until June 1, 2022, Respondent was employed full-time as a lawyer in the Boston office of a large international law firm (“Firm B”), where he continued to concentrate his practice in the areas of private equity and corporate mergers and acquisitions. At all times related to the events described in this complaint, Respondent, as an attorney employee of Firm B, owed a fiduciary duty to the firm and its partners to act with the highest degree of good faith and honesty in all matters relating to Firm B’s business and property and to avoid using the Firm’s goodwill, reputation, and resources for his own personal benefit.’
    • ‘Respondent left Firm B on June 1, 2022. From September 6, 2022 until July 13, 2024, Respondent was employed full-time as a lawyer in the Denver office of a large international law firm (“Firm C”) where he continued to concentrate his practice in the areas of private equity and corporate mergers and acquisitions. At all times related to the events described herein, Respondent, as an attorney-employee of Firm C, owed a fiduciary duty to the Firm and its partners to act with the highest degree of good faith and honesty in all matters relating to Firm C’s business and property and to avoid using Firm C’s goodwill, reputation, and resources for his own personal benefit.’
  • “He was connected with T.S. and got involved with Kush Kart”
    • ‘Between September 8, 2020 and November 1, 2020, T.S. asked for and Respondent provided legal assistance and legal advice relating to the drafting of contracts, permitting, and applications to be submitted to the CCC on behalf of Kush Kart. Respondent did not execute an engagement agreement with T.S. or with Kush Kart, or explain to T.S. that he was not acting as her lawyer. Based on the fact that T.S. saw on the CCC’s Equity Services List that Respondent offered pro bono legal services to SEP participants, that T.S. asked Respondent for and received from Respondent legal advice and legal services, and that Respondent was communicating with Respondent from Respondent’s Firm A email account, T.S. reasonably believed that Respondent was her lawyer.’
  • “Firm A discovered the Kush Kart connection”
    • ‘On or about March 3, 2021, employees at Firm A discovered that Respondent was communicating with T.S. about Kush Kart from his Firm A email account, and directed Respondent to inform T.S. that Firm A was not representing her. Respondent sent T.S. a text message stating, “Can you reply to the email I’m about to send you from my firm. They think I was providing services under the [Firm A] brand to Kush Kart and not in my personal capacity. A simple ‘Lol I know and thanks.” Respondent then emailed T.S. stating, “As already stated at the outset: I write to clarify that I have been assisting you in my personal capacity and not on behalf of [Firm A]. You do not and have not formed an attorney client relationship with [Firm A]. If you have any questions, please direct them to my personal email address which is as follows: [Respondent’s personal email address].” Less than 20 minutes later, T.S. responded to Respondent’s Firm A email address, as Respondent instructed, “Lol I know and thanks.” Respondent’s email did not make it clear that Respondent was not acting as an attorney for T.S. or for Kush Kart.’
  • “Charges involving his law firm employers”
    • ‘Respondent never disclosed to either Firm A, Firm B, nor Firm C that he was acting as the Chief Operating Officer of Kush Kart during the time of his employment with Firms A, B, and C. Respondent further failed to disclose to Firm C that he had received salary from Kush Kart during the period of his employment with Firm C. Respondent’s failure to disclose to Firms A, B, and C that he was simultaneously employed by Kush Kart while employed with each Firm was dishonest, because Respondent knew that Firms A, B, and C required him to devote his full time to each Firm’s practice, and further knew that the Firms were paying him to devote his full time and attention to each Firm’s practice.’