Bressler Risk Blog

Former President of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, and current member of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Brian Faughnan writes on: “Conflicts beyond lawyers” —

• “I have written in the past about the perhaps ‘unique’ approach that Tennessee has to the question of allowing non-consensual screens to cure conflicts arising from lateral movement of lawyers. That approach can make lateral movement of lawyers both less and more complicated.”
• “What a lot of lawyers and firms in Tennessee do not grasp, though, is that the same structure and approach under our rules can apply to staff when they move from working for one lawyer or law firm to another.”
• “A recent report about a Texas lawsuit where there is now the threat of disqualification after years of litigation because of an undisclosed conflict of interest stemming from a paralegal who moved between law firms has reminded me that I’ve been meaning to elaborate on the risks, complications, and further inequities of Tennessee’s approach when it is applied to people who are not lawyers.”
• “Tennessee’s RPC 1.10(c) generally allows the creation of a screen to cure imputed disqualification that would otherwise occur when a lawyer moves between firms. It includes certain requirements about making sure there has not already been any flow of information in addition to promptly establishing the screen. Importantly, it also requires that a notice be sent to the former client about what has caused the need for the screen and what actions have been taken.”
• “But Tennessee’s rules treat litigation differently from non-litigation matters such that the entire approach above is not available when: (a) the lawyer moving firms was ‘substantially involved’ in the representation of the former client; (b) that past representation involved litigation where the former client is directly adverse to a current client of the firm that lawyer is now joining; and (c) the litigation is still pending when the lawyer makes the switch.”
• “In those situations, the firm wanting to hire the lawyer can only do so if it is able to get full conflict waivers from both sets (former and current) of clients fighting with each other in the litigation or if it is willing to drop the current client.”
• “The additional wrinkle that gets added to the mix in Tennessee is that Comment [10a] to our RPC 1.10 states: ‘The requirements set forth in this rule include law clerks, paralegals, secretaries, and other staff employed by a firm, with due regard to their levels of responsibility in the matter.'”
• “Now what ‘with due regard to their levels of responsibility in the matter’ really means is subject to much debate. But that debate is not a widespread one because of the reality of things on the ground in Tennessee.”
  Based on my experience, the reality in Tennessee is that a small minority of law firms grasp that this comment to RPC 1.10 means that they need to be concerned about the potential for being disqualified as a result of hiring paralegals and legal assistants who are working at other law firms. Within that small minority, a majority of firms will make necessary efforts to try to deal with the issue when the matter involves litigation and, thus, would require a full conflict waiver. Only a minority of the firms within that small minority of overall firms make the effort to provide the notice that is required in order comply fully with the rule when nonconsensual screening can provide a solution to avoid imputation.”
• “The entire situation is one that certainly creates a looming risk for law firms in Tennessee. But it also raises questions about whether, as a matter of public policy, the kinds of barriers to employment of people without law licenses that the rule erects are really justifiable.”

And David Kluft asks: “If a judge is a crime victim, can a prosecutor who appears before the judge in other cases prosecute the judge’s case too?” —

• “An incarcerated individual in MN sent a letter threatening to kill a district court judge. When the state pressed charges, the defendant moved to disqualify. He argued that it was a conflict for the prosecutor to prosecute his case at the same time he was appearing before the judge/victim in other matters, because the prosecutor would be incentivized to be more vigorous than in other similar cases (as evidenced by a 21-month plea offer). The defendant was convicted and sentenced to 18 months.”
• “The MN Ct. of Appeals affirmed and disagreed there was a disqualifying conflict because (1) a victim is not the client, the state is, and the state’s interest does not conflict with the interest in prosecuting the case; (2) even assuming the prosecutor would handle the case more vigorously than others, this is not a ‘material limitation’ that conflicts with a duty the client because the states wants cases handled vigorously and justly; (3) a plea offer can’t sustain a conflict of interest claim, and if it could this plea offer was not crazy based on the egregiousness of the charge; and (4) there was no traditional conflict, such as a personal relationship with the judge or financial stake in the case.
• Decision: here.

“Uthmeier’s brief tenure at GrayRobinson raises potential ethical issues” —

• “When James Uthmeier took a leave of absence from Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration so he could run the governor’s flailing presidential campaign in 2023, he also signed on with one of the state’s most powerful and politically connected law firms, which regularly lobbies the state of Florida on behalf of its clients.”
• “His time at the law firm was brief. What he did there and what he got paid are not publicly known. But Uthmeier’s stint at the private practice — reported for the first time here — raises ethical and legal questions about the Republican attorney now running for the job of Florida’s top prosecutor.”
• “Financial disclosure forms filed by Uthmeier show he worked for GrayRobinson from September 2023 to January 2024. The law firm’s lobbying clients include Meta Platforms, Walt Disney World and Uber, and GrayRobinson also has provided legal services to the state, racking up more than $140 million in billings over the last five years.”
• “Uthmeier returned to his job as DeSantis’ chief of staff after the GOP governor suspended his presidential campaign in early 2024 following a resounding defeat by Donald Trump in the Iowa caucus. DeSantis this year appointed Uthmeier to fill the remaining term of former Attorney General Ashley Moody, whom he’d appointed to the U.S. Senate.”
• “This revolving-door arrangement between the state’s top office and a high-powered law firm that lobbies for its clients in Tallahassee and has made millions doing business with the state opens a gate to potential conflicts of interest, political experts said. More broadly, it illustrates powerfully the incestuous nature of politics and influence in Florida, where the lines between public servants and special interests are often blurred.”
• “Those possibilities are magnified as Uthmeier now campaigns for attorney general in the 2026 election and has become a key figure in the Hope Florida scandal. One of GrayRobinson’s longtime clients is Centene, a national healthcare provider whose $67 million Medicaid settlement is at the center of that controversy.”
• “As the state’s top criminal prosecutor and a member of the Florida Cabinet, which along with the governor votes on land deals, insurance regulation and other state business, Uthmeier could have a conflict in cases or business involving GrayRobinson or its clients, experts said. And if his employment at the law firm was an arrangement made with the governor’s presidential campaign, there could be a breach of election laws.”
• “But there are no clear guidelines restricting state employees from going to a private law firm and then back on the public payroll.”
• “‘This is something that’s done all the time because the Florida Bar and Supreme Court never said anything critical about it,’ said Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. ‘That’s the problem here. The lines are very messy and very blurry.'”
• “More than a year later, it is still not clear what Uthmeier did while at GrayRobinson or how he landed the job. He hasn’t answered repeated requests for comment, and neither has Dean Cannon, the former Republican Speaker of the House who currently runs GrayRobinson. The firm’s PAC, however, has donated $3,000 to Uthmeier’s 2026 campaign.”
• “GrayRobinson was no doubt reaping ‘the ancillary benefits of having someone listed on their law firm roster who was working on the campaign of a rising star at the time,’ agreed Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida.”
• “Whether it is good for the public, from both an economic and ethical standpoint, depends on whether Uthmeier participated in cases for GrayRobinson clients doing business with the state and then continued to help them once he was back in the governor’s office, Jewett said.”
• “But the financial disclosure forms that shows Uthmeier worked for GrayRobinson do not require him to list any cases or clients, making it hard to determine if he had conflicts.”
• “‘To the extent that the current Attorney General worked for a lobbying firm raises ethical constraints about what companies he interacts with as attorney general,’ said Gregory Koger, a political science professor at the University of Miami. ‘He should be careful to avoid making decisions about those clients the firm represented during that time he worked there.'”
• “Theoretically Uthmeier could have a full-time job with the law firm and work on a campaign on the side, Koger said. ‘But if he is drawing a salary and not doing any work for GrayRobinson that could be construed as a campaign contribution,’ he added.”
• “Around the same time Uthmeier began to work for GrayRobinson, the firm was engaged to represent DeSantis in a lawsuit filed by Monique Worrell, a Democrat whom DeSantis removed from the state attorney’s job in Orange and Osceola counties. He claimed she was failing to do her job. She denied the charges and was re-elected last year. Uthmeier has been relentless in his criticism of her performance ever since.”
• “Moreover, Uthmeier had financial connections to each of the opposing sides in the Medicaid settlement agreement with Centene — to the state of Florida, as the governor’s top staffer for policy and administrative decisions, and to the company, through its employment of GrayRobinson.”
• “Records show Uthmeier set up meetings between state officials and lawyers for Centene in 2022, about a year before he began working for GrayRobinson. Those negotiations broke off in 2023 after the state fired the outside law firm it had originally hired to negotiate the original agreement.”
• “Negotiations resumed in 2024 after Uthmeier came back to the state and concluded that September, with the state agreeing to give $10 million of that settlement money to Hope Florida.”
• “Uthmeier has denied playing any role in the settlement agreement negotiations but has said as far as he could tell it all looked legal. He also has defended spending the money fighting the medical marijuana initiative as in the state’s best interests. DeSantis’ committee spent millions of dollars on advertising and the amendment fell short of the 60% approval it needed to pass.”

“P.E.I. Land Regulator’s Past Ties to Law Firm Representing Buddhist Groups Raise Questions” —

• “As Prince Edward Island calls for an RCMP investigation into allegedly suspicious foreign land acquisitions, The Bureau has learned that the prominent lawyer now chairing the province’s land regulator — the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) — previously spent more than 20 years with the same P.E.I. law firm that represented Buddhist organizations IRAC was mandated to investigate.”
• “The Bureau’s review, based on legal correspondence and public records, sheds light on a growing political firestorm in Prince Edward Island, where lawmakers and citizens alike are questioning whether the province’s tightly knit legal and political community has prevented necessary scrutiny of land dealings that could threaten Canadian sovereignty — according to explosive allegations aired at an Ottawa press conference last week.”
• “Former Canadian solicitor general Wayne Easter, joined by authors Garry Clement and Dean Baxendale and former MP Kevin Vuong, told reporters that the situation requires independent federal intervention.”
• “‘There are too many interconnections within Prince Edward Island to really get to the bottom of the issue,’ Easter said. ‘You need a federal public inquiry that can subpoena witnesses, trace bank accounts, and bring in people internationally to get to the bottom of this.'”
• “The core question, according to Easter and a growing community of concerned citizens, is whether allegations from Clement and Baxendale’s investigation — that Chinese Communist Party entities appear to be entwined with major land acquisitions through a network of Buddhist groups with an increasing footprint in eastern P.E.I. — are accurate, and whether provincial or federal authorities have for some reason turned a blind eye. Their claims echo findings raised in a significant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigation earlier this year.”
• “In response to that CBC report, representatives of the Buddhist groups strongly denied allegations of ties to the Chinese Communist Party or any improper dealings. In a related controversy, CBC later issued a controversial correction to its explosive story — a move that, according to a statement from the government of Taiwan, occurred under pressure from Chinese officials. That development, in itself, underscores how the situation in Prince Edward Island has resonated internationally, even as most Canadians remain largely unaware.”
• “Documents reviewed by The Bureau — and a 2016–2018 IRAC file that was supposed to probe the Buddhist land dealings but, following a subpoenaed response from P.E.I. lawmakers, was revealed last week to have been quietly ended without explanation — raise new questions about oversight and governance in the province’s land regulator.”
• “Proof of IRAC leadership’s former ties to the law firm that represented the Buddhist groups while they were supposedly under IRAC review comes from public documents and private legal letters on the matter obtained by The Bureau.”

“Law firm deals with government have ethical implications, DC Bar ethics opinion says” —

• “Law firms that enter into agreements with the government that may limit or shape their law practices should consider the ethical implications, according to an October ethics opinion by the District of Columbia Bar.”
• “The D.C. Bar’s Ethics Opinion 391 doesn’t directly reference deals made by nine firms with President Donald Trump to avoid punitive executive orders. The agreements require them to provide $940 million altogether in pro bono help to causes supported by Trump.”
• “But those kind of deals are among those covered by the opinion, Bloomberg Law reports.”
• “The issues include:
  • Potential conflicts of interest for representation that is adverse to the government. ‘A lawyer must represent her clients ‘zealously and diligently,’’ the opinion said. ‘This includes the right of each client to conflict-free representation because a conflicted lawyer may be tempted, consciously or otherwise, to pull her punches in advocating for or otherwise representing her client.'”
  • To continue the representation, the lawyer must disclose the conflict and obtain informed consent from the client. But a firm may not be able to give full disclosure of the conflict if it doesn’t know which of its actions might trigger adverse government action. ‘Obtaining a valid waiver may be difficult,’ the opinion said.”
  • Restrictions on a lawyer’s right to practice. Lawyers are prohibited from making agreements in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy.”
  • Professional independence. Lawyers improperly limit the exercise of their professional judgment if they take third-party direction on whether to accept or decline a certain client or direction on the services to be provided.”
• “Lawyers who agree to such deals aren’t the only ones who should consider the ethical issues, the opinion said. Ethics rules regarding restricting the right to practice and professional independence also apply to lawyers negotiating such deals on behalf of the government, the opinion said.”

NYT goes into more detail: “After Law Firm Deals With Trump, D.C. Bar Warns of Ethical Jeopardy” —

• “Even though the committee’s opinions are not legally binding, they are considered authoritative and are often cited in disciplinary proceedings brought by the office that prosecutes legal ethics violations, which is overseen by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Allegations of a conflict can also be important if a law firm is sued for malpractice.”
• “An earlier draft of the ethics opinion, a copy of which was seen in recent months by some outside lawyers, explicitly discussed Mr. Trump’s deals with law firms, according to people who described it on the condition that they not be named.”
• “But at least nine struck deals with him, agreeing to provide millions of dollars in free legal services to causes he favors. The exact details of the arrangements are murky. Mr. Trump announced them on social media, but it is not clear whether those are formal written deals that detail the scope of the obligations the firms have agreed to, as opposed to vague handshake agreements.”
• “At least two of those firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Kirkland & Ellis, are now working on a range of matters for the Commerce Department, The New York Times has reported. A personal lawyer to Mr. Trump has also connected a third, Skadden Arps, with the department about working on trade deals for the Trump administration.”
• “In the spring, a group of legal ethics professors filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the lawsuits by a firm challenging the order, Perkins Coie, flagging the ‘intractable ethical issues’ raised by law firms that reach agreements with Mr. Trump.”
• “‘A firm that can survive only by staying in the president’s good graces has incentives that conflict with its lawyers’ stringent fiduciary duties to remain loyal to the interests of their clients, exercise independent judgment, and be truthful and candid in all dealings with the courts,’ it said.”
• “The brief also argued: ‘Lawyers who fail to fulfill their professional legal obligations to their clients and to the courts could be subject to bar disciplinary proceedings. They may potentially also be civilly liable to clients for breach of fiduciary duty if they accept a representation burdened by a conflict of interest.'”
• “The opinion by the D.C. Bar legal ethics committee was styled as forward-looking, offering considerations for firms that may be weighing a deal with a government.”
• “And if a firm that made a deal with the government and is trying to stay in the government’s good graces but also represents a client whose position is contrary to any of the government’s programs or policies, the deal would call into question whether the firm might pull its punches instead of zealously advocating its client’s interests, according to the opinion.”
• “To avoid an ethics problem, the opinion said, such a firm must drop the client, pull out of its agreement with the government or obtain a conflict-of-interest waiver from the client. But, the opinion also stated, to validly consent to such a waiver, the client must be fully informed of all the ways in which a firm’s deal with the government might create a conflict and the potential consequences.”

David Kluft asks: “Can I advise a defendant on a pre-trial plea deal if a former client may be an adverse witness later at trial?” —

• “Multiple defendants were arrested as part of a drug distribution ring in CO. One defendant (the Witness) pled guilty right away and planned to testify against the others. A CO lawyer who had previously represented the Witness in an unrelated matter appeared for one of the other defendants (the Defendant) against whom the Witness might testify at trial.The lawyer had confidential info about the Witness that would help the Defendant, so he had a potential conflict if the Witness testified.”
• “However, it never came to that because Defendant took a plea deal before trial. Defendant later moved to withdraw the plea, arguing that her counsel had a conflict while advising her on the plea. The trial court denied the motion because, although the lawyer didn’t consult with Defendant about the possible conflict, the conflict was never realized because there was no testimony, and the lawyer claimed it didn’t affect the advice he gave her on the plea.”
• “This decision was reversed on appeal: because the lawyer was unable to disclose to the Defendant the confidential info he had about a witness, he was operating under a conflict that was not waived by either client, and he failed to discuss with his client alternative strategies such as withdrawing from the case in favor of successor counsel, who may be able to discover and use info against the Witness that he could not use.”
• Decision: here.

“Seyfarth Beats DQ Bid In Amazon COVID Screening Case” —

• “A Colorado federal judge Monday [9/29] denied Amazon warehouse workers’ bid to disqualify Seyfarth Shaw LLP from representing the e-commerce giant in a proposed wage class action, rejecting arguments that Amazon wrongly represented former managers who may be class members since the firm immediately withdrew from that representation once informed of the possible conflict.”
• “Seyfarth Shaw LLP is representing Amazon in a proposed class action, filed in 2021, alleging that the online retailer violated Colorado wage law by failing to pay employees for the time they spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings before clocking in for work. (Courtesy of JKing Images)”
• “In a seven-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore denied a Sept. 13, 2024, motion to disqualify Seyfarth and sanction Amazon. The motion accused Seyfarth of violating ethics rules by representing former Amazon managers who had previously been hourly workers and were therefore possible class members in the lawsuit over unpaid COVID-19 screenings done off-the-clock.”
• “The former employees who held managerial roles at issue are Kierra Howlett, Kristi Adkins, Eric Girard and Kevin Copeland. The plaintiffs argued Seyfarth reached out to these individuals after Amazon was sued, agreed to represent them at their depositions as third-party witnesses, and entered agreements with them.”
• “The plaintiffs further accused the firm of soliciting direct representation of these individuals, with Amazon footing the bill, adding there are ‘obvious conflicts’ associated with simultaneously representing absent proposed class members and a defendant in a case, according to their motion to disqualify. “
• “On Oct. 30, 2024, Seyfarth opposed the disqualification bid, arguing there was no real harm since its attorneys quickly ended their representation of these former employees, after discovering some of them could qualify as class members since they previously worked as hourly employees at Amazon.”
• “However, even if those individuals are putative class members, they’re not parties to the instant action, Seyfarth had said, pointing out there’s no class certification motion pending in the case.”
• “On Monday, Judge Moore rejected the sanctions bid and the motion to disqualify, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims aren’t enough to show that Seyfarth’s brief representation of the possible class members adversely impacted the integrity of the judicial process, let alone that any impact superseded Amazon’s right to pick its attorneys.”
• “Regarding Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, which the plaintiffs relied on to push their argument that Seyfarth’s representation of Howlett and Girard created a conflict of interest, Judge Moore noted that rule only applies to representation that involves a concurrent conflict.”
• “The judge continued: ‘And, in the absence of even a motion for class certification, plaintiffs’ suggestion that Seyfarth would need to be ‘actively fighting class certification’ is premature.'”
• “Seyfarth’s representation of these individuals didn’t violate any law, and the plaintiffs do not show Seyfarth had any reason to think it couldn’t competently and diligently represent these individuals’ interests, the order added.”
• “‘Nor have plaintiffs shown that by conducting pre-disposition meetings with these individuals, Seyfarth obtained confidential information that Defendant might use to their disadvantage,’ Judge Moore said. ‘Plaintiffs have not established that Seyfarth violated any duty it owed to its former clients or that any potential conflict of interests tainted the fairness of these proceedings.'”

“‘Website Time’: The Big Law Phenomenon That Could Lead to a Liability Nightmare” —

• “Jumped or pushed? In today’s world it is difficult to tell whether a lawyer leaves a law firm of their own accord or is shown the door. This uncertainty extends to the hiring market where firms recruiting associates or partners may think they’ve made a wise choice, when in reality their sparkly hire had been asked to leave their previous employer. This confusion owes in part to the rising phenomenon known as ‘website time’.”
• “Website time is the period that a lawyer’s profile remains on a law firm’s website even in the months after they’ve ceased practising with their firm. It enables lawyers to appear as if they’re still active and are leaving out of choice, avoiding the need to explain to recruiters and prospective employers either the circumstances of their departure or the dreaded gap in their work history.”
• “But law firms benefit too. According to sources, some firms are offering website time instead of having to pay out a lawyer’s notice period. Though the practice is ‘widespread’, law firm insurers and other insiders explain to Law.com how website time can expose firms to potential fraud and dishonesty claims, and could even limit their ability to turn to their insurers where disputes arise.”
• “There is a growing sense in Big Law that once you are off a law firm’s website you will struggle to find a job… ‘A profile absence of more than the usual notice periods raises unwanted questions, and gives other firms the impression that you were not wanted.’ A recruiter said that once a lawyer was off a website that ‘they were instantly less valuable.'”
• “But website time helps address this anxiety. It keeps you ‘active’, notwithstanding the fact that your employment has ended in a less than desirable manner.”
• “One senior partner at a U.S. firm in London said that you could offer associates website time in lieu of a paid notice period, thereby giving them longer to try and find a job but also keeping money in the pocket of the firm.”
• “Despite its benefits to the parties involved, website time raises an ethical question. Jeff Cunningham, an outside general counsel for law firms at U.S. based firm Cohen Vaughan, said: ‘It’s clearly misleading to the public, it invites confusion for the client when they think they’re being represented by someone else.’ Cunningham also pointed to issues such as conflict of interest and law firm insurance.”
• “He suggested that the practice was unlikely to change until law firms felt it in their pocket, adding that the relative weakness of the legal services regulators, both in the U.K. and the U.S. meant that the people with the real power are the insurers. Cunningham said: ‘It’s a long time for law firms to have someone on the website [six months] and that’s a big liability.'”
• “A legal insurance specialist at a leading U.K. legal insurer told Law.com that ‘if a client asked me about this, the moment a person ceases to be employed, they should come off the website… You would think in a well run firm, they would keep the website bang up to date. The danger is if you’re on the website and not on the books.'”
• “The insurer added that it was a grey area that had yet to be challenged in the insurance realm. But he could foresee difficulties for law firms.”
• “Theresa Panesky, west region leader of the claims and legal group at insurer WTW, said: ‘If a lawyer who is no longer employed holds themselves out as affiliated with the firm, and the firm is named in a claim, coverage issues could arise. An insurer might be likely to argue that the conduct was outside the scope of the attorney’s role at the firm, and therefore not covered.'”

“Judge Allows Malpractice Lawsuit Against Baker McKenzie to Move Forward” —

• “Global law firm Baker McKenzie is facing renewed legal scrutiny after an Illinois judge allowed a legal malpractice lawsuit to proceed against the firm and its Moscow affiliate, Baker & McKenzie CIS Ltd. The case, filed by London-based investment firm Lehram Capital Investments Ltd., accuses the firm of negligence, conflicts of interest, and mishandling of crucial litigation tied to a disputed coal mining venture in Russia.”
• “The dispute centers on Lehram’s 2013 acquisition of a coal mine in Russia’s Kemerovo region — an area known for its energy resources and complex local political ties. Lehram alleges that soon after the purchase, one of its directors was detained by Russian authorities and pressured to sign documents transferring the mining asset to a company allegedly linked to the powerful Shchukin family, which the plaintiff claims has close connections to regional government figures.”
• “Lehram retained Baker McKenzie’s Moscow office to help recover the mine and address what it characterized as an unlawful seizure of its property. The lawsuit claims that the firm, despite its global brand and integrated marketing, failed to deliver the competent representation expected from an international law firm of its stature.”
• “In its complaint, Lehram accuses Baker McKenzie and its Russian affiliate of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The allegations include filing the recovery claim in the wrong court — a procedural error that allegedly doomed Lehram’s case from the start. According to the suit, Baker lawyers chose to file in a civil court that imposed a 10-day limitation period instead of pursuing arbitration, which would have offered a three-year filing window. As a result, Lehram’s claim was dismissed as time-barred, effectively preventing the company from reclaiming its lost asset.”
• “Lehram also contends that Baker McKenzie failed to disclose significant conflicts of interest, including prior relationships with Russian government-connected clients. The firm is further accused of exposing Lehram representatives to risk by introducing them to individuals allegedly tied to criminal groups during the course of the representation.”
• “Baker McKenzie, which operates globally through a Swiss verein structure — meaning its various offices are legally independent entities — has argued that its Moscow affiliate acted autonomously. The firm sought to dismiss the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, asserting that the case should be heard in Russia, where the events occurred, or alternatively in London, where Lehram is based.”
• “On October 17, 2025, Judge John Tully Jr. of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, denied Baker McKenzie’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing Lehram to move forward with discovery. The court found that Lehram had presented sufficient evidence to suggest that Baker McKenzie’s global offices might operate with more interconnection than the verein model publicly suggests.”
• “The case highlights ongoing legal and ethical challenges faced by international law firms operating under the verein model, where member firms share branding, marketing, and resources but claim separate legal liability. While the verein structure offers flexibility for managing global operations, courts in the United States have increasingly scrutinized whether such distinctions truly shield parent entities from liability.”
• “Legal analysts say the Lehram v. Baker McKenzie case could have significant implications for malpractice risk management, especially for firms that market themselves as ‘seamlessly global’ while maintaining legally distinct partnerships. The outcome may clarify how far U.S. courts are willing to extend liability to global firms when their affiliates allegedly fail clients abroad.”
• “If Lehram ultimately prevails, the case could set a precedent allowing plaintiffs to hold major U.S.-based law firms accountable for malpractice committed by their international branches — particularly when evidence shows the firms function as integrated global operations rather than independent local partnerships.”
• “The case underscores a growing risk for international law firms: the possibility that courts in their home jurisdictions may hold them liable for actions by affiliates operating abroad, particularly when firms promote themselves as unified global organizations.”

“Cybercriminals are going after law firms’ sensitive client data” —

• “Regardless of their size, all law firms hold valuable data, including client communications, financial records, and confidential legal strategies. That data has never been more at risk. Cybercriminals are targeting law firms by exploiting vulnerabilities, weak passwords, outdated systems, and untrained staff.”
• “The FBI warned U.S. law firms about the Silent Ransom Group, which has been active since 2022. The group breaks into networks, steals client data, and demands payment while threatening to leak or sell the information. Since March 2025, it has moved from callback phishing campaigns that impersonated companies like Duolingo to vishing, where attackers pose as IT staff to get employees to install remote access tools such as Zoho Assist or AnyDesk.”
• “The UK’s Legal Aid Agency disclosed a data breach that exposed sensitive case information, showing that government-backed legal organizations face the same risks as private firms. The breach forced the agency to take digital services offline, stopping online applications, payments to legal aid providers, and case processing.”
• “Law firms are also finding themselves in the crosshairs of cyberattacks linked to foreign governments. Nation-state actors see the sensitive client and corporate information law firms hold as strategically valuable, making them prime targets for espionage and data theft. “

“Quandaries & Quagmires: Risky business: Professional liability claims” —

• “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility recently published an update to its Profile of Legal Malpractice Claims (‘ABA Study’) providing data related to professional liability claims from 2020-2023, based on data from professional liability insurers who shared data with the study. An important limitation to the study is that big law is generally not represented. A separate study conducted by Eileen Garczynski at EPIC Law Firm Group polled 11 professional liability insurers that combined provide coverage to more than 80% of AM Law 100 and NLJ 250 firms (‘EPIC Study’).1 Additionally, Doug Richmond and Andrew Ricke recently compiled information from two leading insurers of large and midsize firms and reported the data anonymously (‘Lockton Report’).2 Finally, Minnesota’s Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility published its Annual Report providing insight into disciplinary trends. Collectively, the studies/reports will be discussed to illustrate risk variations among those surveyed and tips to minimize risk will be provided.”
• “According to the 2020-2023 ABA Study, the riskiest practice areas experiencing the highest number of claims are (1) estate, trust, and probate; (2) real estate; (3) personal injury – plaintiff; (4) family law; (5) collections and bankruptcy; (6) business transaction commercial law; (7) patent, trademark, and copyright; (8) corporate/business organization; (9) labor law; and (10) criminal law.3 For context, estate, trust, and probate increased in risk from its previous fourth-place ranking to now atop the leaderboard. This shift in frequency is attributed to the aging population and the highest transfer of wealth comparatively to any other time in the United States.4 Likewise, labor law and patent, trademark, and copyright claims increased by approximately 2.6%.”
• “Conversely, criminal lawyers experienced a decrease in claims by 2.2% compared to the 2019 study, as did person injury – plaintiff lawyers (3.58%), family law claims (2.79%), and collections and bankruptcy claims.5”
• “Five actions (or inactions) have consistently remained the top five activities giving rise to claims. They are: (1) preparation, filing transmittal of documents; (2) commencement of action/proceeding; (3) advice; (4) pre-trial or pre-hearing; and (5) settlement negotiation.12 Substantive errors are the largest error category alleged in claims and include failing to know and/or apply the law, drafting errors, conflicts, inadequate discovery/investigation, failure to know/ascertain a deadline, failure to understand/anticipate tax, errors in public record search, and errors in mathematical calculation.13 Administrative errors follow and include failing to calendar properly, clerical errors, failing to react to calendar, failure to document—no deadline, procrastination, and lost file.14 Client relations errors follow, with intentional wrongs claims as the least frequently made claim.”
  “Lawyers are much more likely to experience a claim because they failed to commence an action in a timely matter (up 2.73%), had a drafting error (up 3.99%) or engaged in a conflict of interest (up 2.89%).15”

“SDNY Judge Tells Biglaw Lawyers ‘Costumes Optional’ For Friday Hearing” —

• “On Friday morning, lawyers from Weil Gotshal and Steptoe, facing off in WarnerMedia Network Sales v. DISH Network L.L.C., will convene at the Southern District of New York courthouse for a morning meeting with Judge Arun Subramanian. It’s your standard, sign-of-our-times media feud: Warner has a deal allowing DISH to air Warner programming, but DISH packaged some of that content so it could be purchased on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis through SlingTV and Warner isn’t happy about it. It’s a ‘can the roommate keep using the Netflix account we got for the house?’ situation ramped up to corporate boardroom level.”
• “A Friday hearing is pretty normal. But Friday is Halloween, so the judge has one special trick for the parties.”

• “Here’s the thing about the words ‘Costumes optional.’ It may seem ‘optional,’ but that reads a whole lot like a dare. Do you want to show up in business attire when the other side agreed to the judge’s whimsical invitation? Is there some junior associate at Weil billing .3 to ‘Trip to Spirit Halloween’ for a David S. Pumpkins suit right now?”
• “The odds are probably right around the same as an appearance of the Great Pumpkin. That said, if any litigation could bring out a little lawyer cosplay, it would be one involving media companies. We [Above the Law] reached out to both Weil and Steptoe to ask if they had any reaction to the order, but have not heard back. We will update if either decides on a costume.”
  “To demonstrate the parties’ good faith negotiation powers, maybe the lead attorneys could coordinate and arrive in a Vincent Gambini maroon tuxedo and an Elle Woods pink Jackie Kennedy outfit? Unfortunately, My Cousin Vinny is a 20th Century Fox production and it might be more gauche than the tuxedo for Warner’s attorney to show up as a rival studio’s character.”

“Ga. Atty DQ’d From ‘Extremely Weird’ Pharma Fraud Case” —

• “A Georgia federal judge said Wednesday [10/1] she intends to disqualify a prominent defense attorney from representing a man charged with lying to investigators amid a criminal fraud probe into his employer, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Inc., but would allow the company to continue footing his legal bills as he seeks new counsel.”
• “U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg said that she could not allow attorney Bruce Harvey to represent Choat Soviravong thanks to Harvey’s past work for Hi-Tech’s CEO Jared Wheat, who is set to head to trial later this month on a slew of fraud charges related to the company’s sales of dietary supplements.”
• “But citing Soviravong’s right to the counsel of his choice and the strain on federal resources in assigning him a public defender in what’s already been an ‘extremely weird’ case, Judge Totenberg said she would let Hi-Tech keep covering his attorneys fees. The decision came despite protests from the government that the arrangement would compromise Soviravong’s ability to decide if he wanted to turn state’s witness for Wheat’s trial.”
• “‘I feel constrained,’ Judge Totenberg said, ‘but it doesn’t mean I don’t think that there needs to be a proper transition.'”
• “The wrangling over Harvey’s role in Soviravong’s criminal case came as the latest wrinkle in a nearly decade-long investigation into Wheat and his Norcross, Georgia-based company. First indicted in 2017, Wheat was accused of forging documents to deceive consumers into believing his products met U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines. He also faces money laundering counts and, until earlier this month, several controlled substance charges that were dropped by prosecutors.”
• “Soviravong’s prosecution, according to court records, stemmed from an interview with FDA and Internal Revenue Service investigators in 2014. Sorivavong, who is listed as Hi-Tech’s creative director on its website, was indicted five years later on charges that in the interview, he falsely said he wasn’t involved in the preparation of pharmaceutical certificates.”
• “Harvey’s representation of Soviravong during that interview would ultimately result in his removal from both his and Wheat’s criminal cases. One of Atlanta’s most in-demand defense attorneys, Harvey joined Wheat’s legal team shortly after his 2017 indictment, but prosecutors called for his removal about three months later since Harvey had already represented a potential government witness.”
• “On Wednesday, Hi-Tech attorney Arthur Leach told Judge Totenberg that he had erected a ‘Chinese wall’ around Harvey as soon as they realized the potential for a conflict, cutting him off from discovery almost immediately after he was hired.”
• “‘I explained to [Wheat] that you just can’t bring Bruce inside until this is resolved,’ Leach said.”
• “But federal prosecutor Nathan Kitchens argued that the conflict had created an ‘unrebuttable presumption’ that Harvey had access to privileged information from Wheat’s case, telling the judge that ‘neither the court nor the government nor anyone should be in a position where we’re intruding’ into attorney-client discussions.”
• “‘You have to presume that in that three-month period, Mr. Harvey obtained privileged, confidential information,’ Kitchens said.”

“Mintz Seeks $2 Million in Success Fees from Former Client in Patent Dispute” —

• “Boston-based law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. has filed a lawsuit against its former client Parus Holdings, Inc., alleging the company failed to pay over $2 million in ‘success fees’ tied to a series of lucrative patent litigation outcomes. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sheds light on the growing tension between law firms and clients over performance-based compensation structures in intellectual property cases.”
• “According to Mintz’s complaint, the firm entered into a 2019 engagement agreement with Parus Holdings, a Texas-based technology company specializing in voice-enabled and AI-driven communication technologies. Under the agreement, Mintz agreed to provide legal services, including portfolio evaluation, patent enforcement strategy, and litigation support, with part of its compensation tied to the results achieved through enforcement actions.”
• “Mintz claims that under the terms of their engagement, the firm was entitled to receive contingent success fees based on recoveries or settlements resulting from Parus’s patent enforcement efforts. The firm alleges that after it provided years of extensive legal services—including case preparation, filings, and negotiation strategy—Parus received financial recoveries from several of its infringement lawsuits.”
• “However, Mintz asserts that Parus has refused to pay the agreed-upon success fees, totaling more than $2 million. The firm argues that it upheld its end of the agreement by helping Parus achieve favorable results in its intellectual property disputes, entitling it to the promised compensation.”
• “According to the complaint, Parus ‘wrongfully retained the benefits’ of Mintz’s legal work while refusing to pay for the contingent portion of the agreement. Mintz is now seeking damages, interest, and attorney’s fees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.”
• “The 2019 engagement agreement reportedly outlined specific performance benchmarks that would trigger success fees once certain litigation milestones or settlements were achieved. Such arrangements are common in high-stakes patent litigation, where clients may be unable or unwilling to pay full hourly fees up front and instead offer a percentage of any recovery.”
• “Mintz contends that it provided significant value by developing Parus’s IP litigation framework, identifying infringement targets, and initiating enforcement actions that led to successful outcomes. The firm’s filing argues that Parus’s refusal to pay violates both the spirit and the letter of the contract.”
• “The Mintz-Parus dispute underscores a broader trend in the legal profession—especially in intellectual property law—toward performance-based or contingent fee arrangements. Such agreements can benefit clients by reducing upfront legal costs, but they also increase the risk of post-litigation fee disputes if the parties disagree on what constitutes a ‘success.'”
• “For law firms like Mintz, success-based compensation provides the potential for significant rewards in exchange for the risk of partial or delayed payment. However, when clients fail to honor these agreements, firms can face lengthy legal battles to recover fees.”
• “Legal industry experts note that success-fee disputes have become increasingly common as firms seek creative billing arrangements amid competitive pressures and rising litigation costs. The outcome of this case could have implications for how law firms structure similar agreements in the future, especially in the patent enforcement arena.”

“County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 10/23/25 CA2/8” —

• “These cases, consolidated for purposes of oral argument and decision, concern a law firm’s efforts to recover more than $1.7 million in fees and costs for legal services in connection with its representation of then-sheriff Alex Villanueva and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (sheriff’s department) in a lawsuit that the County of Los Angeles (county) brought against Villanueva.”
• “Because of the county’s legal conflict of interest with the sheriff, county counsel by letter advised Villanueva that the Board of Supervisors (board) would provide him with independent legal counsel for the Mandoyan matter.”
• “The same letter also advised Villanueva that he could ‘select which independent counsel to represent [him] in this matter,’ but that the board ‘has discretion to pay such compensation as it deems just and proper for these services,’ citing Government Code section 31000.”
• “Villanueva selected Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Quinn Emanuel or Quinn). The county filed its lawsuit on March 4, 2019. The firm vigorously litigated on Villanueva’s behalf for more than three weeks, at which time Quinn sent Villanueva an engagement agreement which Villanueva signed, and county counsel separately sent Quinn a retainer agreement which Quinn refused to sign. Quinn continued to represent Villanueva until January 2020, and the county paid none of its fees.”
• “Eventually (in October 2021), Quinn Emanuel demanded arbitration at JAMS under the terms of the engagement agreement it had signed with Villanueva.). County plaintiffs sought a declaration that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate between Quinn and the county plaintiffs, and that Quinn was precluded by a previous court order from arguing it had a valid contract for its representation of Villanueva. The county also sought an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the pending arbitration initiated by Quinn.”
• “The central dispute involves whether or not then-Sheriff Villanueva had the authority to retain – as opposed to select – independent counsel to represent him in the Mandoyan matter.”
• “We conclude the sheriff did not have the authority to retain Quinn Emanuel. Summary judgment for the county plaintiffs in their declaratory relief action was proper;”

“Case No.:4:20-CV-02254-YGR: TENTATIVE ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER” —

• “Defendants move for sanctions for plaintiffs’ counsel’s alleged violations of the parties’ stipulated protective order governing this case. The motion is based on certain document disclosures plaintiffs’ counsel made to Department of Labor(‘DOL’) personnel. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby TENTATIVELY GRANTS the motion and orders plaintiffs’ counsel to reimburse defendants in an amount of $50,000,as explained further below.”
• “According to plaintiffs, the DOL is currently investigating defendants in this action for the same business practices forming the basis of this suit. DOL personnel therefore reached out to plaintiffs’ counsel and ‘requested that Plaintiffs enter into a Common Interest Agreement (‘CIA’) with the DOL to facilitate the DOL’s pre-existing investigation.'”
• “Plaintiffs’ counsel states that the DOL intimated it was against department policy to sign protective orders in private cases ‘and that the DOL instead conducts information-sharing with counsel under its own confidentiality and common-interest framework.’ Ostensibly, the CIA was meant to offer similar protections to the protective order. Plaintiffs and the DOL officials entered into the proposed CIA…”
• “Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledges that pursuant to the CIA, they transmitted information which was designated confidential or for Attorneys’ Eyes Only pursuant to the protective order. Indeed, counsel transmitted hundreds of documents to DOL officials between August 2022 and April 2023. Per defendants, the transmissions were only discovered by coincidence.”
• “On December 3, 2024, in connection with a separate matter, DOL sent the United Defendants a document marked ‘Confidential –Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ with a Bates stamp from this action. This did not make any sense, because Defendants had never sent that document to DOL, it had never been disclosed publicly, and Plaintiffs’ counsel had never notified Defendants of any third-party disclosure nor challenged that document’s confidentiality designation.”
• “After further investigation and back and forth with DOL, on December 4, 2024, DOL confirmed they received the document from Plaintiffs’ counsel in this action. Following this discovery, defendants sought a court order mandating that plaintiffs provide a log of all disclosures, which the Court granted. Following delivery of the log, defendants moved for sanctions.”
• “It is beyond dispute that plaintiffs’ counsel violated the protective order. (See Lavin Decl. ¶ 3 (‘I recognize that I made an error in judgment in this case, and I intend never to repeat it.’).)”
• “While the Court recognizes plaintiffs’ counsel’s apology and acknowledgement of the poor judgment, the concession does not firmly admit the gravity of the violation. Counsel states they were acting in good faith and their wrongdoing is characterized by mistaken but reasonable, albeit incorrect,assumptions. The Court disagrees.”
• Even if not willful or malicious, counsel’s assumptions were not reasonable,and the suggestion to the contrary undercuts counsel’s apology.”
• “Finally, the Court notes the parties’ disagreement about a prior case involving a motion for sanctions against the same plaintiffs’ firm, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP. In that case, a Special Master found the firm violated that case’s protective order when it allowed certain corporate executives of the plaintiff to review documents designated as ‘attorneys’ eyes only.”
• “Ultimately, the Court agrees with defendants that TML Recovery presents a troubling pattern in plaintiffs’ firm’s behavior. Despite the district court not adopting the sanctions recommendation, this Court would have expected attorneys from the firm to have learned the importance of adhering to protective orders and with a resolve to avoid any future breaches. The throughline from the Special Master’s findings to this case involves Arnall Golden Gregory’s willingness to treat the terms of protective orders to which they themselves have stipulated as optional, and assume the role of arbiter over whether or not competing concerns justify the sharing of information outside the bounds of those agreements. This they may not do.”
• “As such, the Court finds a knowing and intentional breach of the protective order in this case. An award of sanctions is appropriate to deter further violations in this, and other cases. As shown in another case, failure to assess a penalty did not have a deterrent effect.”

“US Lawyers Walk Fine Line On Privilege, Work Product in Mexico” —

• “For multinational companies, the confidentiality of legal communications is a critical concern, especially when operations span jurisdictions with vastly different approaches to attorney-client privilege and the protection of legal work product.While the principle is foundational in the US, its application and enforcement is murky in Latin America, exposing companies to significant legal and practical risks during cross-border investigations.”
• “Attorney-client privilege and work product are cornerstones of the legal profession in the US, but their strength depends on where you are and who is providing the legal advice. For multinationals, understanding these differences—and planning accordingly—is essential to safeguarding sensitive communications and managing legal risk in cross-border investigations.”
• “In the US, attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between clients and lawyers for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. The privilege belongs to the client, and only the client can waive it.”
• “In contrast, many Latin American countries have less robust and inconsistently enforced privilege protections. Although laws in places such as Mexico, Peru, and Chile require lawyers to keep client information confidential , privilege is often treated as a lawyer’s duty, not a client’s right. This distinction can have major consequences, especially when authorities or courts decide whether to safeguard the privilege and work product during investigations.”
• “The US concept of work product privilege is weak or largely absent in Latin America. In Mexico, for example, there is no direct equivalent, so materials prepared in anticipation of litigation—such as investigation notes, legal analyses, or strategy documents—may not be protected from disclosure if seized or requested in legal proceedings.”
• “Suppose a US-based multinational company operates in Mexico, where certain cartels are designated as terrorist organizations under US law, making any assistance to them strictly prohibited. In Mexico, however, it is said that cartels are deeply embedded in legitimate businesses, such as logistics providers.”
• “Imagine a multinational unknowingly using a cartel-controlled logistics company. Acting on cartel intelligence, Mexican authorities launch a sweeping investigation, raiding both companies and seizing records, computers, and communications between the multinational’s Mexican executives and in-house lawyers.”
• “This highlights a critical gap: In the US, such communications and work product would likely be protected, unless the crime-fraud exception applied. In Mexico, and much of Latin America, the situation is far less certain.”
• “The disparity in privilege protections across jurisdictions creates several risks for multinational companies:”
  • “Loss of Privilege: If authorities in countries with weaker privilege protections review privileged communications or work product, the company may lose the ability to assert privilege over those materials in subsequent proceedings.”
  • “Regulatory Exposure: Seized materials may be shared with US authorities, potentially triggering further investigations or prosecutions.”
  • “Reputational Damage: Public disclosure of internal legal communications can harm a company’s reputation and erode trust with stakeholders.”
  • “Internal Tensions: In-house lawyers in countries with weaker privilege protections may be caught between their duty to protect client confidences and their obligations under local law, which may require them to report suspicious activities.”
• “Multinational companies must adapt legal risk management to each jurisdiction, as relying on US-style protections abroad can be costly. While Mexico’s Article 77 Bis improves protection for external counsel in antitrust matters, significant gaps remain for in-house counsel and the law’s limited scope. The lack of a work product doctrine further heightens risk in Latin America.”

“ASIC Finds Many Auditors Failing To Demonstrate Compliance With Auditor Independence Obligations” —

• “Multiple auditors from audit firms of all sizes were unable to effectively demonstrate compliance with independence and conflict of interest obligations, a new ASIC [Australian Securities and Investments Commission] review has revealed.”
• “The findings, outlined in Report 817 Building trust: Auditor compliance with independence and conflict of interest obligations (REP 817), follow ASIC action against several auditors and audit firm identified as in likely breach of their obligations through this review.”
• “ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke said that the audit sector directly contributes to the quality and integrity of financial reporting by companies and that it needs to observe independence requirements.”
• “‘Auditor independence underpins stakeholder trust and confidence in the audit process and the reliability of the financial information being audited. Unfortunately, our review found that many auditors failed to meet the basic independence requirements, and others failed to identify and critically evaluate potential threats to their independence.”
• “‘It is not enough for auditors to adopt a tick-a-box approach to complying with these important obligations. They must think more critically about whether they are independent and be alive to even the perception that their independence is compromised,’ said Ms O’Rourke.”
• “ASIC’s review found a disappointing number of likely breaches of prescriptive independence requirements. Fifteen auditors were found to be in likely breach of rotation requirements, relationship prohibitions or providing a prohibited non-audit service.”
• “Nine auditors failed to demonstrate how they complied with mandatory rotation requirements that prevent auditors from auditing a listed client for more than five consecutive years.”
• “Five auditors appeared to hold prohibited relationships with clients, including one auditor who was also an officeholder of their client.”
• “None of the 15 auditors flagged by ASIC as having breached their obligations had proactively reported the potential breaches to ASIC, despite receiving a reminder from ASIC in October last year.”
• “‘The failure of these auditors to report breaches to ASIC, including of the longstanding prescriptive independence obligations, is concerning,’ said Ms O’Rourke.”
• “As a result of this review, ASIC accepted the cancellation of a company auditor’s registration for independence failures, issued a $78,250 infringement notice to Nexia Perth over prohibited services, and entered into three court enforceable undertakings with auditors associated with Hall Chadwick (NSW)and the firm over audit rotation failures.”
• “ASIC is conducting additional inquiries into potential breaches identified during this review.”
• “‘Auditor independence is fundamental to audit quality and integrity. A strong focus on independence not only builds trust, it also fosters more rigorous challenge in the audit process thereby enhancing the preparation of high-quality financial information.”
• “‘We expect auditors to carefully consider this report and use its findings to address gaps in their compliance,’ Ms O’Rourke said.”
  “The final review cohort of 48 auditors included individual auditors as well as auditors from the following firms:
  • BDO Audit Pty Ltd
  • BDO Audit (WA) Pty Ltd
  • Connect National Audit Pty Ltd
  • Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
  • Ernst & Young
  • Grant Thornton Audit Pty Ltd
  • Hall Chadwick (NSW)
  • Hall Chadwick WA Audit Pty Ltd
  • Kelly Partners (Sydney) Audit Partnership
  • KPMG Australia
  • Pitcher Partners
  • Nexia Perth Audit Services Pty Ltd
  • PKF Melbourne Audit & Assurance Pty Ltd
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers
  • RSM Australia Partners
  • Stantons International Audit and Consulting Pty Ltd
  • Trood Pratt Audit & Assurance Services Pty Ltd
  • William Buck (QLD) Pty Ltd
  • William Buck Audit (WA) Pty Ltd”