“Civil Action No. 21-cv-02681-RM-NRN” —

• “During discovery, Plaintiffs sought to depose four of Defendant’s former employees who held managerial positions during the relevant period: Kierra Howlett, Kristi Adkins, Eric Girard, and Kevin Copeland. Seyfarth reached out to these individuals, agreed to represent them at their depositions, and entered engagement agreements with them. Defendant paid for the representation.”
• “Seyfarth proceeded to represent Howlett, Adkins, and Copeland at their depositions; Girard’s scheduled deposition has been stayed. Seyfarth terminated its representation of Howlett, Adkins, and Girard after learning that they previously worked for Defendant in hourly positions during the relevant period. It has not terminated its representation of Copeland, as he was never an hourly employee. In the current Motion, Plaintiffs assert that Seyfarth violated ethical rules by soliciting and representing Defendant’s former employees, some of whom are potential class members, and therefore Seyfarth should be disqualified and Defendant sanctioned.”
• “Plaintiffs argue that Seyfarth violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct because Girard and Howlett ‘are confirmed members of the putative class’ and Adkins ‘may also be a class member.’ (ECF No. 91 at 3.) They also argue it was improper for Seyfarth to solicit the four former employees and for Defendant to pay for the representation.”
• “In response, Defendant contends that Seyfarth was unaware that any of these former employees were potential class members when it agreed to represent them in connection with their depositions, and that it terminated its representation of Howlett, Adkins, and Girard upon learning that they worked in hourly positions during the relevant period.”
• “Defendant also contends that Copeland is not a potential class member because he was never an hourly employee.Assuming Plaintiffs—who have never been clients of Seyfarth—have standing to seek disqualification under the present circumstances… the Court finds their allegations are insufficient to establish that the limited representation here adversely affected the integrity of the judicial process, much less that any such impact outweighs Defendant’s right to counsel of its choice.”
• “First, citing Colo. RPC 1.7, Plaintiffs argue that Seyfarth’s representation of Howlett and Girard created a conflict of interest. But that Rule applies to representation involving ‘a concurrent conflict of interest.’ Here, neither individual is a party to this litigation as the case now stands… and Seyfarth withdrew its representation of both individuals once a potential conflict came to light.”
• “In the absence of a certified class, the Court is not persuaded these potential class members had any interest that was directly adverse to Defendant’s interests in this litigation. And, in the absence of even a motion for class certification, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Seyfarth would need to be ‘actively fighting class certification’ (ECF No. 91 at 9) is premature.”
• “Nor has Plaintiff shown a significant risk that Seyfarth’s brief representation of these witnesses was limited in any way by its responsibilities to Defendant, much less that it was ‘materially limited’ as to run afoul of Rule 1.7(a)(2). Second, even if a concurrent conflict of interest existed at the time of Seyfarth’s representation, Plaintiffs have not shown that the requirements of Rule 1.7(b) were not satisfied. Plaintiffs have not shown that Seyfarth had any reason to believe it could not provide competent and diligent representation to these individuals.”
• “The representation was not prohibited by law. And, although Howlett expressed interest in becoming a class member and receiving compensation if Plaintiffs’ case is successful, that does not mean she was asserting a claim against Defendant at the time of the representation.”
• “Moreover, Howlett and Girard gave their informed consent to the representation in their engagement agreements. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, that consent is not negated in Howlett’s case by her tentative and somewhat ambiguous deposition testimony about conflicts of interest generally. Under the circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that Seyfarth’s last-minute discovery of potential conflicts demonstrates that it lacked reasonable procedures to determine whether conflicts exist or that it should have anticipated that these witnesses could qualify as class members.”
• “Accordingly, the Court declines to disqualify Seyfarth because of any concurrent conflict of interest. Third, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Colo. RPC 1.9, which governs a lawyer’s duty to former clients, is also misplaced here.”
• “Because no class has been certified, the Court cannot conclude that these individuals’ interests are ‘materially adverse’ to Defendant’s interests. And, as discussed above, these individuals gave their informed consent to being represented simultaneously with Defendant. See id. Nor have Plaintiffs shown that by conducting pre-disposition meetings with these individuals, Seyfarth obtained confidential information that Defendant might use to their disadvantage.”
• “Thus, Plaintiffs have not established that Seyfarth violated any duty it owed to its former clients or that any potential conflict of interest tainted the fairness of these proceedings.
• “Fourth, Plaintiffs also contend that Seyfarth’s representation of the former employees violates Rules 1.8(f) and 3.4(b) because Defendant paid for the representation. But again, Plaintiffs have not shown that the consent these individuals provided is invalid.Plaintiffs also have not shown that there was any interference with counsel’s professional judgment or any client-lawyer relationship.”
• “Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Defendant paid for the representation for the purpose of influencing anyone’s testimony is unsubstantiated. There is no indication, for example, that these witnesses were induced to give testimony favorable to Defendant as part of quid pro quo arrangement.
• “Finally, Plaintiffs have not shown that Seyfarth engaged in inappropriate solicitation of clients. Seyfarth apparently reached out to the former employees to advance discovery in this case, but there is no indication that it was motivated by pecuniary gain. Like Plaintiffs’ other arguments, this one is speculative and lacks factual support.
• “Aside from failing to establish an ethical violation by Seyfarth, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they have been prejudiced in any way by the testimony provided by these potential class members. In the absence of any showing that Defendant or Seyfarth violated ethical rules, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request to have these witnesses or their testimony stricken as a sanction is unavailing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 91) is DENIED.”

“Husband of judge who blocked ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ shutdown has ties to DeSantis” —

• “An appeals court judge who blocked the closure of Ron DeSantis’s controversial ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ immigration jail is married to a powerful conservative attorney whose law firm has raked in millions of dollars from the Republican Florida governor’s administration, it has been revealed.”
• “Barbara Lagoa authored the 11th circuit court of appeal’s 2-1 ruling last month that paused the Miami district judge Kathleen Williams’s earlier order that the harsh detention facility in the Florida Everglades must be wound down within 60 days.”
• “Lagoa is married to Paul Huck, a senior figure in Tallahassee-based Lawson Huck Gonzalez that is ‘one of Florida’s most politically connected conservative law firms’, according to Prism, an online news outlet that first reported the news.”
• “The law firm, founded in 2023, is tightly aligned to DeSantis’s far-right agenda and has secured more than $10m in state contracts since, WUSF reported. It represents the DeSantis administration in a lawsuit against the retailer Target over its 2023 Pride campaign and was recently hired to assist the search for a new president at the University of West Florida, where DeSantis is engineering a ‘hostile takeover’ of the formerly liberal college.”
• “Prism said it was ‘not apparent’ that Huck or his firm had a financial interest in any matter related to ‘Alligator Alcatraz’, the state-run remote tented camp for undocumented migrants that has been criticized for its harsh conditions and treatment of detainees.”
• “But immigration advocates and Florida Democrats say the fact that Lagoa is making rulings in favor of the DeSantis administration while her husband is benefiting financially from it is a massive conflict of interest and grounds for her recusal.”
• “Anna Eskamani, a Democratic state representative, said Lagoa’s refusal to recuse herself ‘further erodes people’s trust in the judiciary’.”
• “In a statement, she said: ‘It’s concerning to have on such an important case with huge ramifications for the environment a judge with that power to decide on this matter, with a husband that is working on high-profile political cases on behalf of DeSantis.'”
• “The Guardian has contacted Lagoa and Lawson Huck Gonzalez for comment.”
• “In a statement to Prism, Lagoa’s office pointed to judicial ethics rules that require recusal ‘if a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, has previously served as a lawyer or government official in the matter, has a financial interest in the outcome, or if the judge’s spouse or close family member has such an interest or role’.”

“County’s Pharmacy Chief Also Works at a Law Firm” —

• “The county of San Diego’s chief pharmacy officer, who collects a $232,419 yearly salary, moonlights as a partner at a New York-based law firm that advises pharmaceutical companies. County officials refused Voice of San Diego’s request for disclosure documents that county staff must submit about outside work or other activities that may conflict with their county duties.”
• “Dr. Emily Do is the county’s full-time chief pharmacy officer, who oversees county pharmacy practices and standards and has been in that role since 2019. In April, she joined the law firm Dilworth & Barrese as a partner and patent attorney, according to her LinkedIn profile. The firm’s website lists Do as a partner and member of its West Coast team based in San Diego. The firm also notes that it ‘serves as counsel for leading companies in the pharmaceutical industry’ but doesn’t identify specific ones.”
• “‘Emily Do is a registered patent attorney and works with independent inventors, healthcare and pharmaceutical companies to protect their intellectual property interests in the United States and abroad,’ her Dilworth & Barrese bio reads. The law firm bio doesn’t mention that Do is also San Diego County’s chief pharmacy officer – or specific companies she has advised.”
• “Per a 2018 county job description, the chief pharmacy officer works with county Health and Human Services officials, including pharmacy staff, to implement pharmacy policies and standards, recommend changes to county pharmacy services ‘based on community need’ and ensure the county is following regulations. ”
  “In a more recent statement seeking to become the next president of the California Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Do wrote that her county role has also involved advocacy for legislation such Senate Bill 872, which in 2022 allowed counties to operate mobile pharmacies to provide medications and vaccines to homeless residents and others. Do is now set to become the state society’s next president. ”
  “County officials have decided Do’s legal work doesn’t present a conflict. ‘Providing records regarding an employee’s activities outside of work, which has not been deemed to constitute a conflict, would impede on an individual’s personal life and right to privacy,’ the county wrote in its Monday response denying Voice’s records request. ‘Therefore, withholding these documents clearly outweighs the public interest in the disclosure of these records.'”
• “County spokesperson Tim McClain wrote in a separate statement that that ‘based on the information provided by Dr. Do as required by county policy, no incompatible activities were identified.’ “
• “Do has for years juggled both pharmaceutical and legal work. At the time the county hired Do, her LinkedIn page indicates that she was practicing intellectual property law as a sole proprietor though she didn’t report any related income in state-mandated economic disclosures for 2019. Her disclosures only mention volunteer legal work for two local organizations.”
• “Do’s latest disclosure, filed in March for 2024, does not include income or details on her work as a partner at Dilworth & Barrese. “
• “The county this week denied Voice of San Diego’s state Public Records Act request for county forms that Do may have submitted reporting her outside employment. In those forms, county officials are charged with reporting outside activities or jobs they are paid for and their duties so the county can decide whether that work is incompatible with their county job.”