Risk Update

Conflicting Stories — Alleged Client Confidential Information Connected with New Client Pitch, Mayor Makes Major Fuss over Firm’s New Football Focus

Posted Dan Bressler

“Cleveland fires law firm after it agrees to assist Brook Park on Browns stadium” —

  • “Mayor Justin Bibb is firing a law firm that was helping Cleveland raise funds for waterfront development as well as ballpark and arena repairs — since that law firm is now representing Brook Park as it tries to attract the Cleveland Browns.”
  • “Cleveland’s Law Director Mark Griffin sent a letter to Bricker Graydon LLP on Wednesday saying he ‘was extremely disappointed’ with the law firm’s decision to represent Brook Park on the Browns’ stadium issues. Griffin said Bricker Graydon can’t represent both cities without a conflict of interest.”
  • “‘Bricker’s access to Cleveland’s confidential information renders it impossible to now represent Brook Park in such an adversarial posture,’ Griffin wrote.”
  • “The Browns are looking at building a $2.4 billion domed stadium in Brook Park that would be part of a much larger entertainment district on a 176-acre plot. Cleveland, meanwhile, wants the Browns to stay on the lakefront and has invoked the ‘Modell Law’ to try to stop the football team’s move to the suburbs.”
  • “Bricker Graydon said in a statement that many legal issues it will help Brook Park with — including zoning, permitting and real estate — don’t present a conflict of interest.”
  • “‘We see no scenario where the City of Cleveland will be on the other side of those issues,’ the statement from Bricker Graydon said. The law firm added that it values its relationship with Cleveland and plans to work with the city on these concerns in the coming days.”
  • “Griffin said in his letter that keeping the Browns in downtown Cleveland was an important element of these plans. Bricker was privy to Cleveland’s strategy when it comes to both funding sports stadiums and retaining teams, Griffin said.”
  • “Bricker Graydon didn’t tell Cleveland it was considering working with Brook Park, according to Griffin’s letter. Cleveland is now ending three contracts with the law firm and asking it to address the potential conflict of interests.”
  • “‘The interests of Cleveland and Brook Park are direct and indirectly adverse with respect to providing a stadium for the Browns,’ Griffin wrote. ‘The team can only play in one city.'”
  • “Bricker Graydon said it was never retained by Cleveland for work related to the Browns, the Haslams, the Modell lawsuit or the ongoing stadium issue. The firm said it also has not been hired by the Browns or Haslam family, and only took the Brook Park job months after the team announced its intention to move.”

“US law firm accused of ethics breach in Blue Cross antitrust lawsuit” —

  • “A prominent U.S. law firm has been accused of misusing confidential information it obtained in antitrust litigation against insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield to woo new health care provider clients to sue the company.”
  • “The accusations against Zuckerman Spaeder were made on Friday in a U.S. court filing in Alabama by a group of lawyers representing hospitals and other providers in a proposed $2.8 billion settlement with Blue Cross.”
  • “The attorneys said Zuckerman Spaeder was disparaging the class action settlement while urging hospitals to bring their own lawsuits. The attorneys asked a U.S. judge to bar the Washington, D.C.-based law firm from representing providers.”
  • ‘This motion is completely without basis,’ Zuckerman partner Cyril Smith said in a statement. ‘Neither I nor my firm has violated any ethical rule or standard.'”
  • “Smith was named to the five-person plaintiffs’ steering committee that helped direct the litigation in federal court in Alabama. Blue Cross agreed to a $2.7 billion settlement with the subscribers in 2020, and the U.S. Supreme Court last year upheld the accord. Blue Cross has denied any wrongdoing. In October, Blue Cross said it would pay another $2.8 billion and implement a series of reforms to resolve claims from health providers that they were underpaid for reimbursements. That deal won preliminary approval in December.”
  • “The providers’ lawyers told Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor in Birmingham on Friday that Smith was ‘affirmatively advertising’ his prior access to confidential litigation information to drive new business to his firm, in violation of prior obligations as a class counsel for the subscriber settlement.”
  • “‘Mr. Smith has already been well paid for his work for the subscribers; he should not be allowed to monetize his violations of his ethical obligations,’ the attorneys told the court.”
  • “The case is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 2:13-cv-20000-RDP.”